home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!infonode!bbrown
- From: bbrown@infonode.ingr.com (Bailey Brown)
- Subject: Re: 486/50's vs Sun 2's
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.021758.3111@infonode.ingr.com>
- Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
- References: <1992Jul27.054828.21618@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Jul27.173410.19470@leland.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jul27.213527.26349@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:17:58 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- stuartw@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Stuart Woolford) writes:
-
-
- >perhaps this would have more to do with the key-repeat rate on the 486 ??
- >also: a 486 running 32bit OS/2 2.0 programs is about 4 time faster on
- >integer code ( let alone floating point ) than the same machine under dos.
- >(ie: think about what you are actually measuring !!!)
-
- I can't see how this is possible. I can see how recompiling stuff for
- 32-bit *might* make it up to twice as fast, but not 4 times as fast. Please
- justify this. I, myself, have ported DFLAT (the text mode user
- interface lib from Dr. Dobb's Journal) and it's sample application,
- to 32-bit extended dos and have noticed no speed increase at all.
- And this code is full of far pointers. I have seen some small, tight
- programs (gif decoder code) that does not benefit at all from
- 32-bit. The pointers are all near and the words used are all 16bit, and
- there is no reason to make them 32-bit. From my experience, the
- advantages of having 32 bits are more in the form of having a large
- flat address space, and much less in the form of more speed.
-
- ------------
- Bailey Brown "Above all else, confusion reigns."
- Intergraph Corporation
- bbrown@casca.b11.ingr.com Procol Harum
-