Seems, one guy guessed correct answer.
He forgot to publish his brilliant ideas so that I'll make it.
Alexey Kuznetsov.
Forwarded message:
> From galexand@sietch.bloomington.in.us Thu Feb 13 04:26:02 1997
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:18:21 -0500 (EST)
> From: Greg Alexander <galexand@sietch.bloomington.in.us>
> To: "A.N.Kuznetsov" <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
> Subject: Re: CONUNDRUM.
> In-Reply-To: <199702121746.UAA16330@ms2.inr.ac.ru>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970212201603.27250E-100000@sietch.sietch.bloomington.in.us>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, A.N.Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> > The explanations sort of "It is cache problem" or
> > "It is TLB trashing" are not accepted.
>
> You dumbass. I don't care if they are acceptable, but them's the limits of
> the hardware. A multi-tasking OS will be notably slower for some things
> than a non-multi-tasking OS such as DOS or windows.
>
> > Bare MSDOS, Windows3.11 and Windows95 show the same (good) result.
> >
> > You can get the program sources, necessary data,
> > and msdos binaries at ftp.inr.ac.ru:/CONUNDRUM.
> >
> > It prints lines sort of:
> > Step 0 of 6400 45.917 0
> > ^---------- Time measured by P5 CPU, normilized
> > to seconds, supposing that CPU clock is 100MHz.
> > So that, it is seconds only for 100MHz cpu.
>
> I'm fairly certain that your timing shit will not work under a 32-bit
> prot-mode OS in the same way as it would under DOS. Use the time command
> instead.
>
> > For MSDOS I see:
> > Step 0 of 6400 39.376 0
> >
> > Do not ask me what this program does, and why
> > 1.dg3 file is so huge. I have no idea.
> > The only thing that I know is that binary codes
> > really coincide.
>
> Then you know nothing and you are ignorant and have no right to state that
> it is slower. Watcom files will not run under Linux. I don't care how much
> they coincide.
>
> Greg Alexander
> http://www.cia-g.com/~sietch/
>