Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!uwovax.uwo.ca!7103_2622
From: 7103_2622@uwovax.uwo.ca (Eric Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Message-ID: <1991Feb18.203752.8637@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Date: 19 Feb 91 01:37:52 GMT
References: <1991Feb11.151210.4010@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1976@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <1991Feb14.133758.3687@doe.utoronto.ca> <1986@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Lines: 24

In article <1986@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, plinio@turing.seas.ucla.edu (Plinio Barbeito/) writes:
> As far as MiNT is concerned, know that you have been spoiled.
> This product has achieved Unix source near-compatibility, while at the
> same time imposing what is in my opinion a respectably very low CPU 
> overhead, and a low memory overhead (by comparison) at the same 
> time.  
>
Thanks for the kind words. Low overhead was definitely one of my goals for
MiNT, and I think it turned out not too bad (I get about 1 or 2% fewer
dhrystones under MiNT than under TOS, which isn't noticeable to the user).
 
> Could it be possible that MiNT implements a rewrite and speedup of 
> the Bconxxx O/S calls, and that's why typing and printing text
> on the screen does not seem that slow?  Is it just me, or is scrolling
> actually FASTER under MiNT?
> 
No, not yet. In fact, the overhead for system calls under MiNT is quite a
bit higher than under TOS, so Bconxxx calls are a lot slower. However,
it's possible that the Cconws() and Fwrite() may be faster, so it probably
balances out.
-- 
Eric R. Smith                     email:
Dept. of Mathematics            eric.smith@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario   7103_2622@uwovax.bitnet