Mail Archives: cygwin/1999/11/29/16:57:42
Isnt it that all console programs under '95 runs slower. I noticed it first
in batch files...
/ Hugo Ahlenius
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
To: Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua>
Cc: Chris Faylor <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT
| On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 02:47:39PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
| >>>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'.
| >
| >CF> Oh yeah. That was it. If only we'd paid more attention to Windows
95,
| >CF> Cygwin would be much faster. I knew that we should have used the
| >CF> "GoFasterOnWin9x (TRUE);' function.
| >
| > Joke, guys, joke. I can laugh you even more: I was so amused by
| >assurance that sane POSIX implementation cannot be done on Win95 that
| >take making proof of that as my thesis (i.e. I stated that I would
| >implement such thing and it will be as bad as already existing).
| >Consider my condition when I had to announce on the defend that I
| >failed achieving objectives of my thesis! For some unknown reason
| >stupid thing didn't want to work badly - it did screen output quite
| >fast, process files fast also and didn't corrupt them trying to cut
| >\r\n to \n or vice-versa. But don't hold breath, story has happy end:
| >I was granted my Master degree.
|
| If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
| wonder why you aren't using it.
|
| >CF> If anyone thinks they can optimize things so that console I/O works
| >CF> better on Windows 95, I'll be thrilled to consider a patch.
| >
| > Back from humor, if you consider only "optimization patches",
| >probably nothing can be done - I believe that there's really nothing
| >unneeded in cygwin, as comprehensive POSIX implementation.
| >
| > But take an other perspective: how many programs require general
| >POSIX terminal interface? My estimate that no more than 20% At least
| >fileutils, textutils, shellutils, binutils - most commonly used
| >packages doesn't use it. Make lightweight write() path for them -
| >directly to WriteFile() and then see the difference.
|
| Again, feel free to provide a patch.
|
| cgf
|
| --
| Want to unsubscribe from this list?
| Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
|
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -