Subj : Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY
To   : Outsider
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Fri Feb 08 2002 06:15 am

From: Jasen.Betts@p42.f531.n640.z3.cereal.mv.com (Jasen Betts)
Subject: Re: MS XCOPY v 4DOS internal COPY

Hi Outsider.

06-Feb-02 10:15:06, Outsider wrote to Jasen.Betts@xspamp42.f531.n640.z3.f

 O> No, it is a command.com batch. I was merely showing that ATTRIB.exe
 O> is a little faster than the internal DIR command as an addition to
 O> the conversation about the speed of xcopy vs. copy

ah... why didn't you specify it was command.com's internal dir command in
the first place.... (It's kind of hard to guess that in the 4dos newsgroup)

 >> why not do that like this, it's a little faster.
 O> >
 >> command /C %temp%\test1.bat | find "\" > test1.bat

 O> Ahh, but you must not allow yourself to be fooled! Because it isn't
 O> faster, it is actually slower. It just "appears" as though it
 O> _ought_ to be faster because there are fewer lines. Whatever you
 O> do, don't fall into the line counting trap <G>

:) I can't see why it would be slower, I guess I'll have to time it then...

 >> are you discussing 4dos? because when I compared things I found
 >> that command's dir was slowest of them all, but 4dos dir was
 >> fastest.

 O> This doesn't really surprise me.

 >> if you've got 4dos time this one too.
 O> >
 >> del /seya: \*.tmp
 O> >
 >> It should be about 10 times faster than that bat, and does the same
 >> thing.

 O> I have NDOS and it does not have the /e and /a switch.

a was for all files ... /z is equivalent /e was to defeat error messages

 O> It looks faster, but I have no way of timing it!? Also, I was
 O> unable to suppress the screen output

try this:   del /z /y /q /s \*.tmp  >&nul

 -=> 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)

.