Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nwnexus!amc-gw!jwbirdsa From: jwbirdsa@amc-gw.amc.com (James Birdsall) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer Subject: Re: TurboC and TurboC++ Message-ID: <4845@amc-gw.amc.com> Date: 12 Jan 91 00:48:14 GMT References: <350bahrd@yoda.byu.edu> <1991Jan8.195900.28885@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1991Jan09.194126.14780@cavebbs.gen.nz> Reply-To: jwbirdsa@europa.amc.com (James Birdsall) Distribution: comp Organization: Applied Microsystems, Redmond, WA Lines: 25 In article <1991Jan09.194126.14780@cavebbs.gen.nz> frank@cavebbs.gen.nz (Frank van der Hulst) writes: >On another note, upgrading to either TC++ or TP 6.0 should not be contemplated >if you're using a machine less than about a 12MHz 286 with a fast HD. The VROOM >system used does a lot of swapping to/from a HD. On the contrary. I get perfectly adequate performance with TC++ on a 4.77MHz XT with lots of EMS. TC++ has more than 1M of EMS for its own use, and I have a 768K disk cache running as well. On the other hand, I'm not sure TC++ has ever needed to swap -- I compiled a 75K source file and the memory display never got below about 10K free (available conventional RAM about 570K). Running on the XT, TC++ on the average _feels_ only slightly slower than MSC 6.0 running on my 20MHz 386 machine at work. No benchmarks to back this up, however. One note: TC++ grabs *all* the free EMS when it starts and releases none of it, even when you shell out to DOS. This can be annoying. A cursory examination of the manuals revealed no way to prevent this behavior and I haven't been annoyed enough so far to waste a lot of time looking. -- James W. Birdsall WORK: jwbirdsa@amc.com {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!jwbirdsa HOME: {uunet,uw-coco}!amc-gw!picarefy!jwbirdsa OTHER: 71261.1731@compuserve.com ========== "Think of an animal that's small and fuzzy." "Mold." -- RM ========= =========== "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin ===========