From: "Gerhard W. Gruber" <g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: bash eats cycles
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 13:22:22 +0200
Organization: S.I.S. IT
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <359B6D6E.725FCD2E@sis.co.at>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980702132102 DOT 17177C-100000 AT is> <359B6C95 DOT E4CDECE2 AT sis DOT co DOT at>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.56.14.75
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:

> The signifikant load is not in the idle time. It is when the dos box is
> active. Let's assume that I start the compiler and it runs through. After
> this is finished I switch to another dos box and start the command. As long
> as the dos box is on screen the load is significant. I have to minimize the
> box and then everything is back to normal but keeping the window visible is
> a pain.

I just noticed also that the window really has to be visible to start
blocking. It just happend that I had a dos box active but completely hidden
behind another window and the load was ok. After closing the hiding window
it sufficed for the dos box to become visible again and it started to slow
dow. It might be that this is a bug in NT rather in bash, though.
-- 
Bye,
   Gerhard

email: sparhawk AT eunet DOT at
       g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at

Harrison's postulate:  
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.