Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:38:07 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<5567-Wed26Sep2001103806+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<b4o2rtg4vhngk1ielgftmdo2jk4d9ogu86@4ax.com>
	(Radical DOT NetSurfer AT delorie DOT com)
Subject:	Re: Benchmark Testing
References:	<b4o2rtg4vhngk1ielgftmdo2jk4d9ogu86 AT 4ax DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: Radical DOT NetSurfer AT delorie DOT com
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 01:09:24 -0400
> 
> Introduce the DJGPP 2.03/2.95.3 port or the very same program,
> and behold:
>   Pure MSDOS 6.22, above mentioned identical 2MB file takes
>                                                    6 mins 35 secs,
> Under Win95/Dos7:            6 mins 45 secs
> 
> ** TEN WHOLE SECONDS FASTER in "pure" MSDOS 6.22 **

Those 10 seconds are only 2.5% of the total running time: hardly
something to be excited about.

Don't forget that when you run your program on Windows, there's some
overhead due to the fact that quite a few other programs are running
at that time on that system.

> I do not know if I'll want to contaminate my project by porting it to
> (ick) msvc 6.0, but I suppose to be thorough I will eventually have to
> do just that....

What for?  Do you expect it to be faster?

- Raw text -