1. RE: Best Compression Include File
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Oct 17, 2001
- 421 views
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
- Posted by Brian Broker <bkb at cnw.com> Oct 17, 2001
- 432 views
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
- Posted by "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com> Oct 20, 2001
- 385 views
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