Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:902 comp.os.386bsd.misc:794
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!convex!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!warwick!bsmail!kipa!hedley
From: hedley@kipa (David Hedley)
Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX?
Message-ID: <CCF5M5.MHx@info.bris.ac.uk>
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Sender: usenet@info.bris.ac.uk (Usenet news owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: kipa.cs.bris.ac.uk
Organization: University of Bristol, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
References: <MIKE.93Aug19115915@pdx800.jf.intel.com> <250m5t$dmk@europa.eng.gtefsd.com> <252n71$2d4@fnnews.fnal.gov>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 13:03:41 GMT
Lines: 27
Dejan Vucinic (dejan@cdfsga.fnal.gov) wrote:
[ stuff deleted ]
: Now, the copmarison. Those were EXACTLY THE SAME MACHINES. Bought from
: a same vendor, exactly the same equipment inside, 387 FPU in both of them.
: Fortran on DOS was an expensive commercial product, it was dos 5.0 if I
: remember well, and under DOS the program ran about a minute and five seconds
: on both of them. We ran the program on BSD, fifteen seconds. Well, I know
: that in real mode 386 emulates 32bit integer operations, but FOUR TIMES
: FASTER!? Get real!
: All this probably holds for Linux as well. It seems that DOS engineers
: used some other mathematics in their time calculations. ;>
: Don't trust figures too much. Try and measure. You'll be surprized.
I think the real reason for the speed increase lies with gcc. I use gcc v2 under
DOS and it blows Borland C out of the water... I suspect that if you compiled
your C program under DOS gcc, you would find a similar (if not greater) speed
increase.
David
--
Internet email: hedley@cs.bris.ac.uk
or: cs1019@seqa.bris.ac.uk