From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: N8TM@aol.com To: treaves@y11a165.neo.rr.com, cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 18:31:00 -0000 Message-id: X-SW-Source: 1999-03/msg00206.html In a message dated 3/7/99 5:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, treaves@y11a165.neo.rr.com writes: << 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 >> Maybe, under NT. Not under W95, not even with virus checker running. -- 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: N8TM@aol.com To: treaves@y11a165.neo.rr.com, cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 1999-03n/msg00206.html Message-ID: <19990331194500.34r1koDhGI1w9TRBOfdY1czB5MInYmfi8nI89q2YJ9M@z> In a message dated 3/7/99 5:41:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, treaves@y11a165.neo.rr.com writes: << 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 >> Maybe, under NT. Not under W95, not even with virus checker running. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com