Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com From: Chris Faylor Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 12:23:22 -0500 To: Paul Sokolovsky Cc: J Senthil Kumar , cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT Message-ID: <19991126122322.A2084@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Mail-Followup-To: Paul Sokolovsky , J Senthil Kumar , cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com References: <19991123141243.12476.rocketmail@web113.yahoomail.com> <6786.991125@is.lg.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 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@sourceware.cygnus.com