Re: Is this normal ?

adams@acs.ucalgary.ca
Thu, 22 May 1997 18:51:22 MDT


** Reply to note from "Samuel Adams"<sadams@ns.tssc.com> Thu, 22 May 1997 1=
7:47:12 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Samuel Adams 05/22/97 05:47 PM
>
>
> I actually have several questions about Deschal5.exe
>
> (I just learned about this yesterday) so forgive the ignorance.
>
> -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-1-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
>
>
> I have a intel pent-133, running win95, I use a dos bat file call d.bat t=
hat
> runs this command>>> deschal5 keymaster.verser.frii.com.
>
> while nothing else is running on the system...
>
> It downloads the first set of numbers and crunches them out in 12 or 13
> seconds the next set take 200+ seconds then next 800+ seconds then
> 5000+ seconds and so on. (that is as far as I got since I lost my interne=
t
> connection)
>
> Does this sound correct??? or do I have a problem?
>

I understood that the Win clients were somewhat slower than some of
the others, but the numbers you quote areabout 60% of what I get with the
OS/2 client running networking, having object desktop open (an OS/2
shell) leaving my mailer open and occasionally writing a note and sending i=
t,
leaving netscape open, playing windows hearts in a win-os/2 session. While
none of these takes many cpu cycles, you say "Nothing" else is running on
the system. If mine is idle, then the 2^30 keys level takes about 3400 sec.
Of course if I print a hugh graphics file on my HP, it jumps to 5-6k!

So are yours really normal? Is that about what other Win95 users get?

If so, is the Win95 overhead that much, or is the client that much slower? =

This is an honest question, not an intent to start OS wars (I know mine is
superior (;-)>.

Mark adams@acs.ucalgary.ca
Warped X4

taxol: Liberal plan for increasing revenue