Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:45:39 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: salvador cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, allegro AT canvaslink DOT com, balug-lst AT balug DOT org DOT ar Subject: Re: Compilers comparisson, some opinions about the generated , assembler In-Reply-To: <37679FA2.6F2B3BAD@inti.gov.ar> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, salvador wrote: > 2) If I run only one task in Win95 (and the scheduler didn't get crazy) I get > the same speed in W95, the difference is too small (under 2%) My notion of slow-down when running on Windows is taken from configuring and building large GNU packages, those where it takes more than 10 minutes to run the configure scripts and Make. Overall, on the same machine which is higly optimized for DJGPP programs both in DOS and in Windows, I usually get 30%-40% slow-down for the same task when running from Windows. That's running only one active DOS box under Windows, and no other Windows programs. For example, what takes 20 minutes from Windows would usually take about 12 minutes from DOS. I have never been able to figure out just what it is in Windows that takes so many CPU cycles. Interestingly enough, if I do something else while the compilation runs, like read my mail with Emacs, or type some code into the editor, the compilation time is unchanged. So apparently multi-tasking other virtual machines is NOT what steals the CPU cycles.