Subj : Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY To : Charles Dye From : Steve Date : Sun Feb 03 2002 12:23 am From: Steve@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (Steve) Subject: Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY From: "E. S. (Steve) Fabian" Charles Dye wrote: > > 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. I never measured the performance difference btw. JPsoft internal copy and MSDOS XCOPY. Mostly I move whole directory tress between unpartitioned drives. When software caching is enabled, I think there is more difference between 4DOS and the 32-bit command processors TC32 and 4NT then there is between TC32 copy and XCOPY32 (a version available only under the various flavors of Win32; on these platforms xcopy.exe is the same as xcopy32.exe). So I think (but have no supporting evidence) that under 4DOS copying many files or large data quantities is probably faster with XCOPY32 (which can take advantage of XMS) but under TC32 or 4NT there won't be any appreciable difference. The choice is really based on the availability of specific options, since there are some vendor-unique ones available. NB: when using a 16-bit OS (e.g. MSDOS) there may be advantage to using TC(16)-s internal copy, since it has access to XMS not available to XCOPY.EXE. -- E. S. "Steve" Fabian ESFabian@BellAtlantic.net POB 1540, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: 856-354-1752 EMPIRE Consultants, Inc. Director, Software Development ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- |Fidonet: Steve 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) .