BTW, Ladislav did some performance testing on a Pentium 4 last October. He gives hints on how to make FD a bit faster, though still about 50% performance of MS-DOS in a best case scenario. Namely, Ladislav suggests (on a 512MB RAM machine) using UIDE w/a 160MB cache, and LBAcache with 16843KB (16MB) cache.
https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/mailman/message/37727725/ https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/mailman/freedos-devel/thread/Dog.2N9f.5Ml4lqeFp6Q.1ZND6x%40seznam.cz/#msg37727725 On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 8:35 PM Louis Santillan <lpsan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You haven't detailed anything about system configuration for this > machine. What hardware (CPU, RAM, DISK)? Are you using FAT32 or > FAT16? LFN? LFN provided by which driver? Which drivers do you have > loaded w/FD and with MS-DOS? Are you using a drive cache in either > one? > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 5:08 PM Volkert via Freedos-devel > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 2:02 AM Ralf Quint <freedos...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Well, I just download both v1.9 and the latest 2.0 and the later is 1.75x > >> as big as v1.9 (143MB vs 81MB), so there must be some more than trivial > >> difference between the installers... > > > > > > I was referring specifically to the DOS installer code within the sources. > > The side of the payloads may (the stuff being installed by the installer) > > may indeed have changed considerably. > > _______________________________________________ > > Freedos-devel mailing list > > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
