1. Best Compression Include File
There seems to be a huge performance difference of Junko's huffman
compression code on Win2K vs. use on Win9x. When I run it on Win2K for
output to the floppy drive, it requires about 1.5 to twice as much time to
complete when running on Win2K!
What's the time profiling command? Maybe I should try that.
Can anybody discern what might be the cause and the fix?
Thanks,
ck
2. Re: Best Compression Include File
Hi,
> There seems to be a huge performance difference of Junko's huffman
> compression code on Win2K vs. use on Win9x. When I run it on Win2K for
> output to the floppy drive, it requires about 1.5 to twice as much time to
> complete when running on Win2K!
maybe it is because you are using ex. Try exw.
Martin
3. Re: Best Compression Include File
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Broker" <bkb at cnw.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: Best Compression Include File
>
> Your bottleneck here is floppy I/O. Are you comparing different OS's on
> the same system? If not, it might be that your Win2K system has a
> slower floppy drive... Just add some time() statements to your program
> to compare floppy I/O times with a test file of fixed size. You could
> also compare compression times on each OS using a few 'time' statements
> and writing to hard disk...
Brian, it's no doubt the floppy-drive access... I'm just not sure if it's a
software (OS) or hardware (floppy drive) problem... or how to check on that.
Well, I've got Win2K on another PC... I'll try the test on that PC and
figure it out.
Thanks,
ck
4. Re: Best Compression Include File
Ck,
I use both win 2K and win 98 at work and 2K takes longer to read and write
floppies in all cases--and the longer the write would be in 98, the bigger
the difference.
-- Mike Nelson
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Best Compression Include File
>
> There seems to be a huge performance difference of Junko's huffman
> compression code on Win2K vs. use on Win9x. When I run it on Win2K for
> output to the floppy drive, it requires about 1.5 to twice as much time to
> complete when running on Win2K!
>
> What's the time profiling command? Maybe I should try that.
>
> Can anybody discern what might be the cause and the fix?
>
> Thanks,
> ck
>
>
>
