🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <ed@mulroyREMOVETHESECHARS.org> wrote in message
news:3f690251@newsgroups.borland.com...
> I'm familiar with the fact that you wrote PC-Sweep Shane.  Don't you
> remember that we used to interact back on Compuserve?  PC-Sweep was 16 bit
> code.  Some are a bit shy with Win32 code for some reason.  Just in case
> that applied to you, I offered.
>

Actually, the original PC-Sweep was for CP/M written in BDS-C (original -
1982) and then later for PC-DOS in Desmet-C. PC-Sweep 32 was around 1994 and
it was 16/32 bit OWL.

WIN32 bit code is actually not much different than the
FindFirst()/FindNext() they introduced in DOS 2.x (other than the
FindClose()).

> > ...LARGE drives with THOUSANDS of files...
> FYI:
> I have 30G which is now considered a small drive and I have thousands of
> files.  Even with that and with the FAT32 that I use (slower for searches
> than the journaled NTFS), it doesn't take long.  It would probably be
> perceived as even less time if the search were spun off into another
thread
> while the program does other housekeeping and screen manipulation.
>
True but I just want to know if the user has Excel to add to an export
filter on a menu. I just tested speed on one of my client's SLOW network's
running through Terminal Server and creating/freeing an instance of
Excel.Application isn't too bad.

Thanks again,

Shane

> .  Ed
>
> > Shane Stump wrote in message
> > news:3f68db64$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> >
> > Thanks for the offer (I wrote the original PC-Sweep 20 years ago
> > and am quite familiar with file searching <BG>)!
> >
> > It would probably be faster to create an Excel object than to
> > search a drive (many machines these days have multiple,
> > LARGE drives with THOUSANDS of files)!
>
>