Thanks a lot for clarifying. Cheers, CP
Peter Hunkeler wrote:
AFAIK, windoze continually interrupts its execution to check whether the
mouse has moved, whether a key has been hit (which would count as I/O or
'graphics') or whether another has to be dispatched etc.
Off the three
Richard Pinion wrote:
And who remembers DesqView
I ran DESQview. A nice 1985 joke. The Mac was already out.
--
Jack J. Woehr # Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of
www.well.com/~jax # thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe
www.softwoehr.com # with a
-tasking environment. I ran than on a 16 Mhz
8086 AT PC.
--- elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za wrote:
From: Elardus Engelbrecht <elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AW: Re: Friday OTT : DOS vs Windows performance
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016
Tom Brennan wrote:
>Peter Hunkeler wrote:
>> The latter, mouse movement, it the most resource consuming of all the above.
>That reminds me of around 1990 running Windows 3.0, when a newly-minted
>Windows Admin (used to be a mainframer) saw my habit of moving the mouse in
>big circles while
CM Poncelet wrote:
>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.
Peter Hunkeler wrote:
The latter, mouse movement, it the most resource consuming of all the above.
That reminds me of around 1990 running Windows 3.0, when a newly-minted
Windows Admin (used to be a mainframer) saw my habit of moving the mouse
in big circles while waiting for the machine to
>AFAIK, windoze continually interrupts its execution to check whether the
mouse has moved, whether a key has been hit (which would count as I/O or
'graphics') or whether another has to be dispatched etc.
Off the three above only the last is true. The mouse device and the keyboard
device
Thanks for that - yes, I know.
However, the ASM program uses only register and 'immediate', not
storage-storage, instructions (RR and RI, but no RX and SS etc.) in its
inner and outer loops (LOOP2 and LOOP1). It does store/retrieve (PUSH,
POP) data on the stack to save/retrieve intermediate
On 10/01/2016 06:24 AM, 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
>>
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.
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
'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:
12 matches
Mail list logo
