From: "Damian Yerrick" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: allegro gone missing? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:10:51 -0500 Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Lines: 26 Message-ID: <7tvq6d$ccs$1@solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu> References: <19991012053219 DOT 9064 DOT rocketmail AT web1402 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: yerricde.laptop.rose-hulman.edu X-Trace: solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu 939748365 12700 137.112.111.210 (12 Oct 1999 17:12:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news AT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Oct 1999 17:12:45 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Johan Venter wrote: > Prashant TR wrote: > > > > The speed is due to file cacheing and other features > > of Windows 95. I don't know if you could ever measure > > the speed of a DPMI host. How did you do it, anyway ? > > For some reason I find that compiling in DOS under CWSDPMI > is takes about twice as long as compiling in Windows under its > DPMI server. When compiling under CWSDPMI, the compilation > does more disk thrashing than usual (noticeably more). Before you run RHIDE or make, try typing at C:\> smartdrv c+ Compiling in gcc uses a lot of different EXE files, and Windows by default caches them in memory. Damian Yerrick http://come.to/yerrick DY uses Outlook JV uses Outlook How did I know this?