Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!jwbirdsa
From: jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: DOS is fast? (Was Re: Why unix doesn't catch on)
Message-ID: <8197@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 7 May 89 18:09:34 GMT
References: <7632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <256@jwt.UUCP> <2496@bucsb.UUCP> <274@tree.UUCP> <552@rna.UUCP> <13546@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3718@nunki.usc.edu>
Reply-To: jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James Webster Birdsall)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 23

In article <3718@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes:
>I'm pretty certain that the performance which MS-DOS extracts out of
>it's hardware could not have been got by writing in C.  So writing 
>MS-DOS in assembly ...
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're never too old to have a happy childhood.
>
>ajay shah (213)745-2923 or sawant@nunki.usc.edu
>_______________________________________________________________________________

   What performance? OK, I guess your point is that it's as fast as it
is because it was written in assembly. Perfectly valid... but ask all
the programmers who have to deal with writing to the video RAM about how
fast it is. :-) [Incidentally, ARE there any parts of DOS which are
generally acknowledged as being fast? All I ever hear about are the
parts which everybody thinks suck.]


-- 
James W. Birdsall  jwbirdsa@phoenix.Princeton.EDU  jwbirdsa@pucc.BITNET
   ...allegra!princeton!phoenix!jwbirdsa   Compu$erve: 71261,1731
"For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin