From: e8725229 AT stud1 DOT tuwien DOT ac DOT at (godzilla)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Watcom vs DJGPP
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 97 17:12:22 GMT
Organization: Vienna University of Technology, Austria
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <63nhql$ri3@news.kom.tuwien.ac.at>
References: <1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 32 DOT 19971103185401 DOT 006f5e38 AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tubiomed.tuwien.ac.at
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In article <1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 32 DOT 19971103185401 DOT 006f5e38 AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br>,
   Cesar Scarpini Rabak <csrabak AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br> wrote:
>At 15:43 03/11/97 +0100, Fabrice ILPONSE wrote:
>>Hi!
>>
>>	WATCOM can create DOS code but the editors are under windows!
>
>Partially correct! Watcom versions 10.0 and 10.5 (the two licenses we have
>at this site) have an implementation of theirs of the vi editor with some
>embelishments (like syntax coloring, windows, etc.) for M$-DOG.
>
>>	WATCOM programs are faster than DJGPP ones!
>
>Not enough details! How were the Watcom programs compiled/linked? Did you
>try with the same environment, i. e., extended DOS?

personal experience: watcom-compiled progs (extended dos with dos4/gw 
extender) are 10 to 15 (20) percent faster then djgpp-compiled ones on a 
pentium (with all (p5-specific) optimizations turned on), while there was 
no difference in speed on a 486 (with 486- optimizations) -> the lacking 
pentium-specific optimization
might account for the difference.

.. this may have no general significance, since all the programs i wrote at 
that time where roughly of the same kind (numerical integration of large 
systems of diff. equations, little I/O-operations)

greetings from vienna
godzilla