Subj : Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY To : Outsider From : Jasen Betts Date : Sun Feb 03 2002 09:53 pm From: Jasen.Betts@p42.f531.n640.z3.cereal.mv.com (Jasen Betts) Subject: Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY Hi Outsider. 02-Feb-02 07:59:30, Outsider wrote to Steve O> From: Outsider O> E. S. (Steve) Fabian wrote: > ....snipped >> 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? O> As I understand it, xcopy should be faster with larger files O> (>64K). it's sometimes faster than 4dos. especially if there are lots of descriptions involved. (it can mess the descriptions up though) O> But is xcopy allowed in 4DOS? yes, but it doesn't handle descriptions. O> It probably sounds like a stupid question, but when I previously gave O> an outline for a batch using xcopy, someone sent me an email saying it O> was not a 4DOS solution. it's not pure 4dos... (because xcopy isn't part of 4dos) O> So now I am a little in doubt. Is there a problem with using xcopy in O> 4DOS only loss/mangling of descriptions. O> PS. Attrib.exe seems to be slightly faster than DIR. ??? attrib.exe the attrib builtin will respond faster as it doesn't read the whole directory before beginning to print, and also doesn't sort the files, or check for descriptions etc... attrib.exe may be faster for the same reason but may be slower as it has to load from disk. here "dir /a /b /ou" seems faster than the builtin "attrib". "\dos\attrib.exe" was slower than plain "dir", "dir" was slower than "attrib". I tested them on a directory with 114 files 2 with descriptions. console I/O was via nansi.sys -=> Bye <=- -- |Fidonet: Jasen Betts 3:640/531.42 | | 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) .