Paige,

There is some cacheing that goes on after the first test on a particular machine, so the only fair way to test is to turn the machine all the way off between tests.

There are also issues of how the available memory is allocated, which I think are different in NT than in Win9x.

Unfortunately, all I know is that these things are factors. Otherwise, OS issues are out of my league. Hopefully someone with more detailed knowledge will come along.


>Hi All,
>
>I've been running some test of VFP 6.0 on different workstations/servers. Using the Coverage Profiler the speed difference running a simple SQL statement on my NT 4.0 workstation and running the same SQL statement against the same file on an NT 4.0 server is: Server 3.5 sec. and workstation 8.7 sec.
>
>The time is about the same whether I run the SQL against data on the server on a local drive when I run from the workstation. The greater significance is the the server has a 2.33 mhz chip and the workstation has a 4.5 mhz chip. The other factor is that the Server is SCSI and the Workstation is IDE. But that doesn't seem to account for the difference since the time to run the same SQL against the same data on a Win 98 workstation with a 2.33 mhz chip and using VFP 5.0 is 3.7 sec.
>
>It would appear that it might be something in the NT 4.0 workstation setup or configuration or maybe VFP 6.0 set or configuration. I'm sure that I'm not the only one to encounter this. Can anyone shed some light on this situation? I did a search on VFP timmings etc. and I didn't find anything. TIA.
>
>Regards,
>
>Paige