Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.programmer:3875 comp.windows.ms.programmer:1287
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!byuvm!libcrn
From: LIBCRN@BYUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: BCX vsBC
Message-ID: <91070.132331LIBCRN@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: 11 Mar 91 20:23:31 GMT
References: <27380@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 45

=========================================================================

>Has anyone felt a noticeable difference between running Borland C++ in
>and out of protected mode.  I ran some bench marks of the BCC and BCCX
>and got times within 10% of each other most of the time:

>8K file
>included Windows.h
>prcompiled headers on

>24 SECONDS using BCC
>" "              BCX
>13 SECONDS using BCC -Qe or -Qx

>This is with 33mhz 386, 8MB of RAM, configured as follows:

>2MB disk cache (NCACHE-F EXT=2048)
>1MB for DOS (+384K of shadowing)
>5MB for whatever else wants it, configured as XMS

>I have tried using -Qx, -Qe, BC, BCCX, BCX, BCC, and disabling/enabling a
>greater cache and I have YET to notice major increases in speed!

   In the post that I made which asked about running BCX within Windows
(again I apologize for wasting bandwidth on a question that I should have
solved myself by reading the manual), I listed compile-and-link times for
two simple Windows programs.  The difference that I saw was VERY NOTICEABLE.
In case you missed my earlier post, here are the numbers again:


PARTY.C    (from Petzold's "Programming Windows" book):
        BC  --  5.5 minutes.
        BCX --  16 seconds.
WHELLO.CPP (from Borland's sample programs)
        BC  --  8 minutes   (that's right EIGHT MINUTES!)
        BCX --  40 seconds.


   Of course my machine isn't nearly as monstrous as yours so you may not
get the same type of results as I did.  My hardware is much more modest:
        * * IBM PS/2 Model 55sx   with  4 Mbytes of memory. * *

>Brian

--Cory (libcrn@byuvm.bitnet)