Article View: comp.os.msdos.misc
Article #3179Re: Why is erase *.* slower with 4dos.com than with command.com?
From: mr k.l. lentin
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 14:31
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 14:31
18 lines
1502 bytes
1502 bytes
In article <1991May20.064529.1764@nic.funet.fi> akoivuma@finsun.csc.fi (Antti Koivumaki) writes: >I have noticed that when I use 4dos.com, erase *.* works much slower than >when command.com is used. I tested this by erasing 100 files using each. >I did this on an otherwise empty hard disk partition. The result: >- using 4dos.com (v. 4.02), erase/q *.* takes about 5 seconds >- using command.com (of DOS 3.3), erase *.* takes less than 0.5 seconds. > >The computer is a 12 MHz AT with a 40 MB Seagate ST251 hard disk. > >A bug or a feature? Any explanations? I have noticed the same with xtree/pro/gold/etc. I think the reason is that xtgold and 4dos probably delete a file at a time whereas I think all DOS does is read in the directory cluster into memory, wipe it and resave it. You might find that del *.exe when there are lots of exe's might take longer than del *.* in DOS. (I might also be wrong :-) |/ |\evin
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991May20.143142.16378@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!monu0.cc.monash.edu.au!monu4!ins845bReferences:
<1991May20.064529.1764@nic.funet.fi>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!monu0.cc.monash.edu.au!monu4!ins845b From: ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr k.l. lentin) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc Subject: Re: Why is erase *.* slower with 4dos.com than with command.com? Message-ID: <1991May20.143142.16378@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au> Date: 20 May 91 14:31:42 GMT References: <1991May20.064529.1764@nic.funet.fi> Sender: news@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au (0000-news(0000)) Organization: Monash University, Clayton, Vic 3168, Australia Lines: 18