From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geoffrey Noer To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000313180831.I8690@cygnus.com> References: <20000313180414.15800.qmail@web107.yahoomail.com> <9886.000313@is.lg.ua> <4.3.2.20000313181326.00b8a590@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <20000313185555.B24233@cygnus.com> <38CD87BE.B69B05A7@sigma6.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-03/msg00310.html On Mon, Mar 13, 2000, Jeff Sturm wrote: [...] > Don't be so sure. I've used GCC on Interix for a while... let's just > say that Cygwin rocks. > > The Interix product relies heavily on the POSIX subsystem, instead of > shared memory as Cygwin does. For many of my user applications the > subsystem process actually consumes more CPU time than the application! [...] Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in improving) Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin to Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other systems I think. Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker, Interix, anything else out there? -- Geoffrey Noer Email: noer@cygnus.com Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company http://www.redhat.com/ -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com