Yes, the programs were written and meant to run natively - i.e. under
native DOS - and not in an emulated windoze DOS box.
I was pointing out the horrendous overhead of running DOS programs under
an emulated windoze DOS box, instead of under their original native DOS.
Some DOS programs (e.g. CTC's SPF/PC) have no native windoze versions.
BTW I have sent a zipped copy of everything to you.
Cheers, Chris Poncelet
Robert Prins wrote:
On 2016-10-01 01:59, CM Poncelet wrote:
't is Friday, so here we go again.
I wrote the following in Intel assembler in the 1990's to check the
CPU-cycles
performance of DOS vs Windows 3.1 (if memory serves), using a 486/33Mhz
processor and practically all executable code loaded in the
instruction cache:
<snip code>
This took approx 1'45" (elapsed) to execute under native DOS with a
80486/33Mhz
processor - i.e. there was a 1-to-1 correlation between the number of
machine
instructions vs the number of actual 33Mhz CPU cycles.
I reran this under Windows XP from the 'command prompt' with a 3.2Ghz
processor
(approx 100 times faster than a 33Mhz one), and it then took 3'48" to
complete -
thus about 200 times longer (CPU-wise/elapsed) than when running
under native DOS.
Moral: Use native DOS (preferably with a DOS extender) for fast PC
performance.
NO, NO, NO!!!
Moral, write programs that run natively. A 16-bit DOS program running
in an emulated DOS box will never run as fast as a native windoze
program... Ask for a native windoze version on
<http://board.flatassembler.net/index.php> or
<http://masm32.com/board/index.php> and the program will probably run
faster than you can blink an eye.
Robert
PS: Decode the email address, you can send me copies of the .EXE's
renamed to .QQQ and in a ZIP file!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
