Subj : Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY
To   : Steve
From : Charles Dye
Date : Sat Feb 02 2002 10:12 pm

From: Charles.Dye@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (Charles Dye)
Subject: Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY

From: raster@highfiber.com (Charles Dye)

On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 01:39:39 GMT, "E. S. (Steve) Fabian"
<ESFabian@BellAtlantic.net> wrote:

>Charles Dye wrote:
>>
>> You can still use it, of course; but
>> you may find it more convenient to simply use the internal COPY
>> command instead.
>
>The sole reason I use XCOPY is that it is supposed to be faster due to
>its own buffering. How does TC32, 4NT, and 4DOS internal COPY speed
>compare with MS's XCOPY?

On my system, Win98 SE operating in DOS mode with SmartDrive disabled for
testing purposes and BUFFERS=30, copying a single 180-megabyte file from one
logical volume to another on the same physical hard drive, I find no
significant difference between 4DOS's internal COPY command and COMMAND.COM's
COPY.  XCOPY is somewhat faster than either, perhaps 8% faster.

Testing with a large number of small files I leave to somebody else.

--
Charles Dye     raster@highfiber.com
--
|Fidonet:  Charles Dye 1:342/3
|
| Origin: The Cereal Port BBS (603)899-3335 199.125.78.133 (1:132/152)


---
 # Origin:  (1:132/152.4)
 * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903)

.