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: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:41:30 -0500 To: Paul Sokolovsky Cc: Fraxinus , cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT Message-ID: <19991130084130.C25670@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Mail-Followup-To: Paul Sokolovsky , Fraxinus , cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com References: <007701bf3ab4$96b26060$500616ac@storebror> <8609.991130@is.lg.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <8609.991130@is.lg.ua>; from paul-ml@is.lg.ua on Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:38:02PM +0200 On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:38:02PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: >Hello Fraxinus, > >Fraxinus wrote: > >F> Isnt it that all console programs under '95 runs slower. I noticed it first >F> in batch files... > > Of course they're slower. But how much slower? I bet they're >hundred times slower (in screen output, of course) than DOS apps >(djgpp's, for example). But why make them times more slower? >Aproximative tests: > >ls'ing directory with 256 entries (all dirs) (seconds) > >ls > pw32 win95/P5-100/24 0.7 > linux 2.0 P5-150/48 0.02 > Cygwin b20.1 win95/P5-100/24 2.42 > >ls -l > pw32 win95/P5-100/24 5.42 > linux 2.0 P5-150/48 2.82 > Cygwin b20.1 win95/P5-100/24 13.28 > >where pw32 is my implementation Patches to correct this problem are gratefully accepted. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com