Message-Id: <3.0.16.19910126072433.2b6750d6@tellus.swip.net> X-Sender: mt58779 AT tellus DOT swip DOT net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 Demo (16) To: opendos AT delorie DOT com From: Bernie Subject: RE: DOS and WIN/98 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:02:11 +0100 Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Joe wrote: >... Is that why some people report the 16 bit version of DJPEG (not >sure it's exact name) runs *faster* than the 32 bit version??? ;-) They do? I haven't seen any such thing. One reason for this diffrence could be considered being the CPU involved. But I tested on my K6-2 400 and Clarence Verge reported about the same results on his 386 so I kind of doubt it has any major impact. >Well, the above is because (IIRC) the 16 bit version outputs to a >different format. ;-) They are the same AFAIK. >The point I am making is that it is very hard to make such comparisons, >because you are not comparing "apples with apples" - often there are >functional differences, not to mention different compilers (with different >optimizations). That is a valid point, I compared 6a 16-bit and 6b 32-bit (and on a RamDrive so HD wasn't affecting speed of course). I never did a test between 16 and 32-bit 6a but it seemed faster. Besides you are probably refering to 6a 16-bit (as seen in 16bit.apm) and 6b 32-bit (default). >Later versions (eg. 2.1b2) were a bit faster, but still they were *not* >any faster than their 16 bit cousin (Arachne ;-) ... ? Hmmm... "cousin" - parent would be a better word. I didn't use WebSpyder much so I can't say. However it's my strong belief that a 32-bit multi-threaded Arachne with built-in support for many plugins would be faster than the current 16-bit version. (FWIW: That would be Arachne 2.x). Ok, it might not be faster on 386's - but seriously people do throw away 486 everywhere, and Pentiums aren't rare to see either you know - so I really don't understand why so many out there are still using 386's. //Bernie