Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:23:22 -0500
To:	Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua>
Cc:	J Senthil Kumar <skumar2 AT hotmail DOT com>, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT
Message-ID:	<19991126122322.A2084@cygnus.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua>,
	J Senthil Kumar <skumar2 AT hotmail DOT com>, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References:	<19991123141243 DOT 12476 DOT rocketmail AT web113 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <6786 DOT 991125 AT is DOT lg DOT ua>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To:	<6786.991125@is.lg.ua>; from paul-ml@is.lg.ua on Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 06:53:12PM +0200

On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 06:53:12PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>EB> --- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2 AT hotmail DOT com> wrote:
>>>Iam using cygwin shell on NT and 95.  On windows 95 the shell scripts
>>>are considerably slow.  Like it take 1-2 seconds for each command.  Is
>>>this natural?.  Is there any parameter to be adjusted in the DOS Shell.
>>>Iam a shell maniac I badly need a fast shell on Win95.  Could you
>>>help?.
>
>It's known issue of Cygwin (and other POSIX layers, e.g.  UWIN).  They
>all by some reason (probably because they themselves were developed on
>NT, without enough attention to other Win32 systems) count Win9x as
>'degraded mode'.

Oh yeah.  That was it.  If only we'd paid more attention to Windows 95,
Cygwin would be much faster.  I knew that we should have used the
"GoFasterOnWin9x (TRUE);' function.

If anyone thinks they can optimize things so that console I/O works
better on Windows 95, I'll be thrilled to consider a patch.

-chris

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -