HS>First of all, when I release the software I've been working on
CB>lately, there
HS>won't be one executable to suit all; there will be many each compiled
HS>specifically for a targeted machine.
CB>Few developers are willing to distribute and maintain a half dozen
CB>different x86 executables and source changes for those optimizations.
CB>Let's see.... you'd have to keep seperate versions for the 8086, 286,
CB>386, original 486, later 486, Pentium, 586 clones, and 686/PPros.
HS>specifically for a targeted machine. It's absurd to think that not
CB>increasin
HS>about 20% overhead on a 486 because it might slow down execution
CB>ratio on a
HS>Pentium.
CB>It depends on your target.  Considering Pentiums class computers
CB>outnumber 486 class computers..... You are generally better off aiming
CB>towards what most people actually _have_.  That's why nobody optimizes
CB>code targeted towards XT, 286, or 386 class computers anymore.  All 3
CB>combined make up less than 1% of all PCs in use.
386's alone are 2% of all computers used. 486's are about 6%. I wouldn't mind 
spending two hours compiling 20 executables so 100% of pc users can use a 
program. 10% of a million is 100,000. Two hours for $100,000 is worth it to 
me.
... Crime doesn't pay... Does that mean my job is a crime?
--- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b
---------------