From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timothy Reaves To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 05:45:00 -0000 Message-id: <199903081350.IAA10871@y11a165.neo.rr.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00223.html >> When I execute this on my machine, a dual PII 266 with 192 meg >> memory & a Seagate Cheeta 10,000rpm hard drive, with three other >> applications running (Netscape, mail, a data conversion app), it >> takes a good 1.5 to 2 seconds to display a directory with fewer than >> 60 entries. >> >> Is this normal? > >Just the first time, or every time? For a directory with 83 entries, the first display took 2.5 seconds. After that the time was 'normal'. Dir under a DOS windows has no perceptable delay. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timothy Reaves To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <199903081350.IAA10871@y11a165.neo.rr.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00223.html Message-ID: <19990331194500.XAkr0rt4V75YBG1QBZrcBl6l4tIEbqMUXViq4vyyZk0@z> >> When I execute this on my machine, a dual PII 266 with 192 meg >> memory & a Seagate Cheeta 10,000rpm hard drive, with three other >> applications running (Netscape, mail, a data conversion app), it >> takes a good 1.5 to 2 seconds to display a directory with fewer than >> 60 entries. >> >> Is this normal? > >Just the first time, or every time? For a directory with 83 entries, the first display took 2.5 seconds. After that the time was 'normal'. Dir under a DOS windows has no perceptable delay. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com