That depends. Besides poorly optimized system caches, is the installer doing things that blow the cache and increase the miss rate? You noted a significantly increased download zip. Is everything actually necessary? Did you download a debug build that will have additional binary code or is the download zip an optimized build?
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 1:12 PM Volkert via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 11:35 AM tom ehlert <t...@drivesnapshot.de> wrote: >> >> >> > Over a month ago, I opened an issue on the FreeDOS project on >> > GitLab about the Open Watcom v2 installer being extremely slow in >> > FreeDOS. It takes an hour or more on FreeDOS, while the same >> > installation completes on MS-DOS 7.1 within just a few minutes. >> >> either you report your config.sys and autoexec.bat for both tests >> or your report is basically useless. >> >> write caching smartdrv (which freedos is known not to have) makes a >> HUGE difference for installers, so you are comparing apples to oranges. >> >> of course running both without autoexec/config.sys would place them on >> an equal playing field. > > > OK, that's a fair point. When I have time again, I'll try to do more of an > apples-and-apples comparison between the two, and then I'll share my findings > here. > > An installation time of an hour still seems excessively slow though, even > when no disk cache is loaded. > > What added value does that issue reporting project on GitLab have over this > mailing list, by the way? Is it actively used, or is it expected to in the > future? > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ > 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
