>> > > FreeDOS MS-DOS7.10 >> > > UDMA2, no cache R=6.3 W=4.4 R=54.2 W=16.0 >> > > UDMA2, cache R=5.5 W=4.4 R=39.5 W=15.7 >> >>Bernd is probably right: EMM386, in particular Pentium VME-unaware >>versions, can be the main cause of bad FreeDOS performance here.
> V86 mode under DOS is probably the problem -- blaming EMM386 is too > specific. why do you (or anybody else) think that ? unless there are data with and without EMM386 to compare, it's a bit pointless to speculate about EMM386, VME, etc... > Plus there are no current facts or statistics to back up the > idea of whether VME support would make much difference. right. AFAIK VME support would/might help a bit if the bytes were written one by one, using int21 for each. > Until you or > another can perform the requisite testing, such remarks are at best premature. in my own words: unless someone looks at WHAT rawspeed is measuring at all (and why it gets such a low performance - it's easy to get a *much* higher performance), the entire thread is a bit pointless. > If an EMM386 can be located which demonstrates measurably better > performance under identical conditions, then we have a thread of > possibility to research. nothing to add. tom ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track? If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy. Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
