From xemacs-m  Thu Mar 13 00:02:48 1997
Received: from beavis.bayserve.net (jmiller@port23.bayserve.net [206.148.244.119])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA16547
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:02:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from jmiller@localhost) by beavis.bayserve.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA00427; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 01:07:48 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 01:07:48 -0500
Message-Id: <199703130607.BAA00427@beavis.bayserve.net>
From: Jeff Miller <jmiller@bayserve.net>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: off-topic - Nt vs Linux
Reply-to: jmiller@bayserve.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


well, sorta off topic. 

Have any of you done your own performance comparisons between Linux/gcc &
Win NT/VisC?

At work, a couple guys have been doing performance tests of some in-house
developed programs. These are primary cpu/os bound type things.  Not a lot
of disk or network activity. 

The interesting thing (and it's killing me) is that when compared on the
same hardware (PPro 200 w/512M ) the WinNT/VisC compiled version is
outperforming Linux2.0.29/gcc2.7.2 by a factor of 2X! 

I'm hoping and praying that there is just some non-obvious compile options
or something we've been missing.  I thik the last options I used were like
"-O4"  I think this gave me the best.  

Any ideas?  

Jeff

