Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!cybrspc!roy
From: roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Why is erase *.* slower with 4dos.com than with command.com?
Message-ID: <Jq3023w164w@cybrspc>
Date: 21 May 91 03:40:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: cybrspc.Jq3023w164w
References: <1991May20.064529.1764@nic.funet.fi>
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
Lines: 24

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.
[...]
> - 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?

A difference, I think.	4dos appears to do 100 deletes, where
command.com invokes some of the DOS magic dust and just kills the
directory entries and frees all the clusters en masse.	That, though, is
the _only_ point on which command.com can win against 4dos.

Things could be worse; you could be doing 100 deletes through the
NewSpace compressing disk driver... at about 2-3 deletes per second.

--
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu - OR-  cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu
  perl -e '$x = 1/20; print "Just my \$$x! (adjusted for inflation)\n"'
        [space reserved for clever quote]{mail your submissions}