Message-Id: <199910132315.RAA19751@lakdiva.slt.lk>
From: "Kalum Somaratna" <kalum AT myflat DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:15:05 +0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: allegro gone missing?
In-reply-to: <3802B556.4F1BECF0@snetch.cpg.com.au>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12)
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 12 Oct 99, at 14:13, Michael Abbott aka 
frEk<20014670 AT snetch DOT cpg DOT com DOT au> wrote:
> I know this is the wrong list for this (biased opinion :) but IN MY
> EXPERIENCE Windows '95 DPMI has been faster. I don't know about smaller but
> it has definitely been faster. Try running Quake I (DOS ver) under Windows
> '95 and then try it under DOS using CWSDPMI... :)
> 
Hi Michael!
May be you are saying this because Sindows 95 has a disk cache 
and therefore since Quake does quite a bit of hard drive access 
while playing, the game might seem to load and run faster than 
under DOS when no cache (smartdrv etc) is installed.

MY EXPEREINCE  for Quake was that for a given CPU (especially 
not so powerful ones), under Win95 performance was quite chunky 
and sometimes the sound gets clipped when compared to DOS 
under CWSDPMI.
See You!
Kalum <kalum AT myflat DOT com>