Path: 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

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