Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com From: Sam Edge To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: cygwin.bat Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 03:11:30 +0100 Organization: . Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: References: <3EBC77C9.7090605@m8y.org> <3EBC793B.9000301@rfk.com> <20030511002234.GD17951@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20030511002234.GD17951@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Posting-Agent: Hamster/2.0.0.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h4B2CD911235 cjf wrote in <20030511002234.GD17951@redhat.com> in gmane.os.cygwin on Sat, 10 May 2003 20:22:34 -0400: > >> >Could be my imagination, but even seems a > >> > little slower. > >> That *would* be your imagination. > >Maybe not. > >If you start up bash.exe directly by double-clicking it or by putting > >bash.exe in a shortcut, then only one process is created. > > > >If you use cygwin.bat, then under Windows NT/2k/XP you first have a > >CMD.EXE process created and then a bash.exe. The CMD.EXE sits around > >doing nothing until the bash.exe process exits. > > [snip] > Translation: Except for a neglible startup cost, it's probably his > imagination. Negligible on a modern PC. Noticeable on some of the kit I've got here. ;-) -- Sam Edge (who seldom parts with a working computer) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/