Roger Pack wrote:
> Thank you!
> 
>> That [official] version was built with VC6, which compared to VC8 perform worse:
> 
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32] (official build)
> time elapsed: 13.516 sec.
> time elapsed: 13.485 sec.
> time elapsed: 13.485 sec.
> time elapsed: 13.5 sec.
> time elapsed: 13.485 sec.
> 
> ruby 1.8.6 (2007-03-13 patchlevel 0) [i386-mswin32_80] VC 8.0
> time elapsed: 10.516 sec.
> time elapsed: 10.531 sec.
> time elapsed: 10.516 sec.
> time elapsed: 10.531 sec.
> time elapsed: 10.515 sec.
> 
> apparently :)
> 
>> As the summary of the tests indicates, all were performed under the same 
>> machine.
> It would be nice to see the comparison run on linux (same machine), too.
> 
>> To make this simple: it's true, current distribution/build of ruby 
>> perform worse than linux counterparts.
> 
>> I just can say 'we' are working hard to get a better build of Ruby for 
>> Windows.
> 
> Thanks for your work on that.  I know some of us use win32 and suffer :)
> -Roger

Speaking of Ruby, Windows and dual-booted machines, I recently decided 
to rebuild my dual-booted laptop and load a few Windows test and 
development tools on the Windows partition. The Linux-side rebuild is 
still in progress, but I should be able to try some simple things over 
the weekend. I'm holding off on Ruby until the One-Click is released, 
though, and I will *not* be loading Cygwin (or VC6, for that matter). I 
think I have enough disk space for Visual Studio Express and Komodo (and 
SwiftForth) :), but that's about it.