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
Message-ID: <007701bf3ab4$96b26060$500616ac@storebror>
From: "Fraxinus" <fraxinus AT home DOT se>
To: <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
References: <19991126122322 DOT A2084 AT cygnus DOT com> <10616 DOT 991129 AT is DOT lg DOT ua> <19991129112651 DOT A5279 AT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT
Date: 	Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:55:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300

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