From: Rob Vasquez <digital DOT fx AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: slow dos, fast win95 linking ?
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 02:31:48 -0500
Organization: Digital Fx
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <32CB6464.F10@worldnet.att.net>
References: <32C8721B DOT 7C85 AT fred DOT net> <32c88b07 DOT 4672540 AT ursa DOT smsu DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.147.48.121
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

Tony O'Bryan wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:53:31 -0500, mlarch AT fred DOT net wrote:
> 
> >With a rough timmer I got 78.6 seconds in dos
> >compared to 11.5 seconds in a dos window under
> >win95. What causes this ? In both cases TMPDIR
> >points to a 16meg ram disk. Under dos qemm is
> >serving up memory. The *.o files passed to make
> >total less than 8k.
> 
> GCC spends most of its time loading the various compilation/link
> stages from disk.  The RAM disk probably won't help a whole lot unless
> you move gcc and all its required accessories to the RAM disk.
> 
> Win95 caches the executables, so has access to them much quicker than
> DOS does.

Win 95 sets aside all free physical memory for disk caching, thats 
builds under Windows are so quick. I get abou the same results with a 8 
meg smartdrv cache, but worse results with a 24 meg smartdrv cache. What 
gives? I have 32 megs of ram and write back caching on both times.

-- 
               Rob Vasquez
               Digital FX '97
               
   email:   digital DOT fx AT worldnet DOT att DOT net