Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!ucsd!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ux1.lbl.gov!sisu
From: sisu@ux1.lbl.gov (judy stirkkinen)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: EUREKA!  (Was Re: Performance degradation in 386 enhanced mode)
Message-ID: <9210@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 23 Jan 91 20:41:28 GMT
References: <4491@mindlink.UUCP> <1991Jan21.211522.18732@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <1991Jan22.211751.10728@sj.ate.slb.com>
Reply-To: sisu@ux1.lbl.gov (judy stirkkinen)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 21
X-Local-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 12:41:28 PST

In article <1991Jan22.211751.10728@sj.ate.slb.com> poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes:
>In article <1991Jan21.211522.18732@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@charm.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes:
>>In article <4491@mindlink.UUCP>, a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) writes:

[original deleted]
>
>I have a 386dx/25 with 8M of memory on the motherboard. Outside of windows,
>Norton SI says 25.8 CPU index and 11.1 disk index. In a DOS window I get
>24.7 CPU and 9.8 DISK. It appears that on my system, there is not much
>performance hit.
>
>Now programs that do graphics in a DOS window ARE noticeably slower, but this
>makes sense.
>
Uhhh.....graphics in a Dos window? I didn't think windows allowed that! (at 
least, *I* havn't been able to get anything hi-rez running, and the techs at
Microsoft said: "It can't be done") Unless you're talking cga graphics?
sheesh!

 -Rob
rob@cad4.lbl.gov