From: Thomas Knudsen <tk AT geb DOT gfy DOT ku DOT dk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: bash eats cycles
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 07:57:13 +0200
Organization: News Server at UNI-C, Danish Computing Centre for Research and Education.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.980703074834.26022B-100000@geb.gfy.ku.dk>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980702132102 DOT 17177C-100000 AT is> <359B6C95 DOT E4CDECE2 AT sis DOT co DOT at> <359B6D6E DOT 725FCD2E AT sis DOT co DOT at>
NNTP-Posting-Host: geb.gfy.ku.dk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <359B6D6E.725FCD2E@sis.co.at>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:

> 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.

... I have seen similar (but not identical) behaviour under Win95: having
one dos box open, my (djgpp-based) program would rund very slow (but only
some times!). In such cases, I could spped the program up by a factor of
2, by starting an extra *idle* dos box or two (at a single occasion, I
even had to start 3 idle dos boxes to get the speed up). This is, perhaps,
just another example of Micros**t's high level technical incompetence... 


-- 
Thomas Knudsen                         | www:  http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~tk/
National Survey and Cadastre - Denmark | e-mail:            tk AT gfy DOT ku DOT dk
Geodetic Department, Rentemestervej 8  | Direct Phone:   +45 35 87 52 64
DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark         | FAX:            +45 35 87 50 52