Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!rtf.bt.co.uk!traub
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Subject: Re: Why is erase *.* slower with 4dos.com than with command.com?
Message-ID: <1991May21.141015.22514@rtf.bt.co.uk>
Date: 21 May 91 14:10:15 GMT
References: <1991May20.064529.1764@nic.funet.fi> <1991May20.143142.16378@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au>
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK
Lines: 26

In article <1991May20.143142.16378@monu0.cc.monash.edu.au> ins845b@monu4.cc.monash.edu.au (mr  k.l. lentin) writes:
>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

No WAY!!! Command.Com uses MS-DOS to do all its work and doesn't do
anything as nasty as you suggest.


Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk