Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Earnie Boyd]

--- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! 
> 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?.

Real Solution: Migrate the Win95 to WinNT.

Win95 itself is slower than WinNT.  If you must use Win95, make sure that you
only have what is necessary in the PATH variable (can be reset in the ~/.bashrc
file) and avoid network drives in the path.  Secondly, make sure you've read my
pages.


=====
Earnie Boyd < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
Cygwin Newbies, please visit
< http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Earnie,

Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:

EB> --- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 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'.

   However, it's possible for Win9x to run console application
decently on some early Pentium (it's of course surprise, since same Pentiums
can play video). My own experiments show that it's possible for Win9x
to run semi-interactive console apps in avarage only about 5 times slower than on
Linux with comporable hardware.

    I still hope make results of this work available some sweet day.

EB> Real Solution: Migrate the Win95 to WinNT.

    Tell that my boss.

EB> Win95 itself is slower than WinNT.  If you must use Win95, make sure that you
EB> only have what is necessary in the PATH variable (can be reset in the ~/.bashrc
EB> file) and avoid network drives in the path.  Secondly, make sure you've read my
EB> pages.




Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 06:53:12PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>EB> --- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2@hotmail.com> 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

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Chris,

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> 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'.

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.

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.

CF> -chris


Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

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@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Fraxinus]

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@cygnus.com>
To: Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml@is.lg.ua>
Cc: Chris Faylor <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.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@sourceware.cygnus.com
|


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Chris,

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> 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'.
>>
[]

>>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.

CF> If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
CF> wonder why you aren't using it.

    Because it's not yet as complete as cygwin. But I'm slowly
working on it.

CF> Again, feel free to provide a patch.

    At the spring, here was the discussion why cygwin doesn't get as
much contributions as it really worth. I remember some guy told that
he disagreed with design principles and that - pitifully - made him
start own scratch instead of more deserving way of helping improving
what already was.

CF> cgf


Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Fraxinus,

Fraxinus <fraxinus@home.se> 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

F> /  Hugo Ahlenius




Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:15:20PM +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'.
>
>>>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.
>
>CF> If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
>CF> wonder why you aren't using it.
>
>    Because it's not yet as complete as cygwin. But I'm slowly
>working on it.

Good luck.

>CF> Again, feel free to provide a patch.
>
>    At the spring, here was the discussion why cygwin doesn't get as
>much contributions as it really worth. I remember some guy told that
>he disagreed with design principles and that - pitifully - made him
>start own scratch instead of more deserving way of helping improving
>what already was.

I don't remember anyone disagreeing with design principles but I'm
always open to talking about things like that, as is DJ (and Mumit, and
Earnie, and Corinna, and Sergey, and Egor).  Are you saying that you
won't be providing any help to the project (other than the usual "I
don't see why you don't just..." comments) because you saw some guy
complaining that he didn't like cygwin's design six months ago?

Ok.  That's fine.  I won't be responding to this thread again.  I
think we've exhausted the potential for any further useful information
here.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:38:02PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>Hello Fraxinus,
>
>Fraxinus <fraxinus@home.se> 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

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Earnie Boyd]

--- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! 
> 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?.

Real Solution: Migrate the Win95 to WinNT.

Win95 itself is slower than WinNT.  If you must use Win95, make sure that you
only have what is necessary in the PATH variable (can be reset in the ~/.bashrc
file) and avoid network drives in the path.  Secondly, make sure you've read my
pages.


=====
Earnie Boyd < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
Cygwin Newbies, please visit
< http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:38:02PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>Hello Fraxinus,
>
>Fraxinus <fraxinus@home.se> 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

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Chris,

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> 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'.

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.

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.

CF> -chris


Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:15:20PM +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'.
>
>>>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.
>
>CF> If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
>CF> wonder why you aren't using it.
>
>    Because it's not yet as complete as cygwin. But I'm slowly
>working on it.

Good luck.

>CF> Again, feel free to provide a patch.
>
>    At the spring, here was the discussion why cygwin doesn't get as
>much contributions as it really worth. I remember some guy told that
>he disagreed with design principles and that - pitifully - made him
>start own scratch instead of more deserving way of helping improving
>what already was.

I don't remember anyone disagreeing with design principles but I'm
always open to talking about things like that, as is DJ (and Mumit, and
Earnie, and Corinna, and Sergey, and Egor).  Are you saying that you
won't be providing any help to the project (other than the usual "I
don't see why you don't just..." comments) because you saw some guy
complaining that he didn't like cygwin's design six months ago?

Ok.  That's fine.  I won't be responding to this thread again.  I
think we've exhausted the potential for any further useful information
here.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Fraxinus]

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@cygnus.com>
To: Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml@is.lg.ua>
Cc: Chris Faylor <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.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@sourceware.cygnus.com
|


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Chris,

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> 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'.
>>
[]

>>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.

CF> If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
CF> wonder why you aren't using it.

    Because it's not yet as complete as cygwin. But I'm slowly
working on it.

CF> Again, feel free to provide a patch.

    At the spring, here was the discussion why cygwin doesn't get as
much contributions as it really worth. I remember some guy told that
he disagreed with design principles and that - pitifully - made him
start own scratch instead of more deserving way of helping improving
what already was.

CF> cgf


Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

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@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Fraxinus,

Fraxinus <fraxinus@home.se> 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

F> /  Hugo Ahlenius




Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Earnie,

Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:

EB> --- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 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'.

   However, it's possible for Win9x to run console application
decently on some early Pentium (it's of course surprise, since same Pentiums
can play video). My own experiments show that it's possible for Win9x
to run semi-interactive console apps in avarage only about 5 times slower than on
Linux with comporable hardware.

    I still hope make results of this work available some sweet day.

EB> Real Solution: Migrate the Win95 to WinNT.

    Tell that my boss.

EB> Win95 itself is slower than WinNT.  If you must use Win95, make sure that you
EB> only have what is necessary in the PATH variable (can be reset in the ~/.bashrc
EB> file) and avoid network drives in the path.  Secondly, make sure you've read my
EB> pages.




Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Chris Faylor]

On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 06:53:12PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>EB> --- J Senthil Kumar <skumar2@hotmail.com> 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

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Alexander Klinsky]

> Hi!
> 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?.

In Win95, 98 MS has slowed down the output to the console using the
conagent.dll. At least when the screen size is kept a the default of 25x80
characters. This is a known issue of the conagent.dll.
The only option to avoid this is to set the screen size to other values than
25x80 or to switch to NT which does not have these problems.


Cheers, Alex


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[J Senthil Kumar]

Hi! 
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?.

Thank a lot,
kumar

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[N8TM]

In a message dated 11/22/99 11:29:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
skumar2@hotmail.com writes:

> On windows 95 the shell scripts are
>  considerably slow
I'm sure people will want more information than this; e.g. did you read the 
FAQ, which version of 95, did you install the Y2K patcher, and, if 
applicable, the USB add-on, and maybe the cygcheck output.

Tim
tprince@computer.org

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Alexander Klinsky]

> Hi!
> 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?.

In Win95, 98 MS has slowed down the output to the console using the
conagent.dll. At least when the screen size is kept a the default of 25x80
characters. This is a known issue of the conagent.dll.
The only option to avoid this is to set the screen size to other values than
25x80 or to switch to NT which does not have these problems.


Cheers, Alex


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[N8TM]

In a message dated 11/22/99 11:29:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
skumar2@hotmail.com writes:

> On windows 95 the shell scripts are
>  considerably slow
I'm sure people will want more information than this; e.g. did you read the 
FAQ, which version of 95, did you install the Y2K patcher, and, if 
applicable, the USB add-on, and maybe the cygcheck output.

Tim
tprince@computer.org

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[J Senthil Kumar]

Hi! 
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?.

Thank a lot,
kumar

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com