Message-Id: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" Organization: INTI To: "Gerhard W. Gruber" , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:43:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: bash eats cycles In-reply-to: <359B6D6E.725FCD2E@sis.co.at> Precedence: bulk "Gerhard W. Gruber" wrote: > 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. Do you know about any DOS program that doesn't have this effect on NT? (don't tell me command.com) If not then I guess that's a NT feature. Doesn anybody know how NT refresh the screen of a boxed task? W95 is relative smart, looks like NT isn't. SET ------------------------------------ 0 -------------------------------- Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/ or http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/ Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer) Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org ICQ: 2951574 Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA TE: +(541) 759 0013