1. RE: Best Compression Include File
Martin Stachon wrote:
> 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.
No, I'm using exw.
I also found out that you can't use "with profile_time" in Win32!!!
What's up with that, Rob?!? :)
Now what am I supposed to do?
2. 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
C. K. Lester wrote:
>
> Martin Stachon wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, I'm using exw.
>
> I also found out that you can't use "with profile_time" in Win32!!!
>
> What's up with that, Rob?!? :)
>
> Now what am I supposed to do?
>
>
3. RE: Best Compression Include File
Thanks, Mike, for the info. That helps a lot.
> 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
