I don't have performance times, but certainly, on my Pentium 166 with 48
megabytes RAM running Windows 95, Winsound was considerably slower than
consound or csound through version 3.46. Since then I have not extensively
used Winsound.

I would have guessed that consound.exe (native Windows console application)
or csound.exe (32-bit DOS extender application) would be faster than the
PowerMac, however, for comparably priced current processors. There are in
fact benchmarks (I just looked them up) that confirm my guess at
http://members.tripod.com/~slinkP/pw_linux/csbench.html.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Guirreri 
To: csound@maths.ex.ac.uk 
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 5:38 PM
Subject: WinCSound performance


>I first wanted to mention I've really been enjoying the feedback from this
>list!
>
>I'm wondering if there is any information about WinCSound performance
>compared to other OS's, particularly the Power Mac version.  I run CSound
>on a Power Mac at school with 32MB RAM and it appears to be much faster
>than my Win98-based, PII-266, 128MB RAM, all SCSI system at home.  We have
>version 3.92 at school and I'm running 3.93 at home.  The orc+sco I'm using
>has 8 instruments, one of which uses a 500K sample loaded in an ftable, and
>the work is about 5:00 long.  Compiling at home is nearly twice longer than
>it is at school.  I'm wondering if others have seen similar results (kind
>of difficult considering we all have different computers), and if there are
>any performance tips and tweaks.
>
>Thanks again,
>Christian Guirreri
>
>cguirrer@runet.edu
>ICQ 9318646