Date:	Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:46:51 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Prashant Ramachandra <rprash AT wilco-int DOT com>
cc:	"'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: newbie
In-Reply-To:	<B5E044AF4430D311B24D0060089CD8B1023ECCAA@hydmail01.hyd.wilco-int.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010201154623.16124C-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Prashant Ramachandra wrote:

> | On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Rudolf Polzer wrote:
> | 
> | > The version of bash I had did not have cp and so on as internal
> | > commands,
> | > thus being everything but echo, # and cd very slow (half a
> | > second!).
> | 
> | Half a second for a cd??  On what system was that?  What CPU and OS?
> | 
> | 
> | On my venerable P166 running Windows 95, "cd" is so instanteneous,
> | I
> | cannot even easily measure the time it takes.
> 
> I've noticed this happening on NT systems. I have no clue as to why that
> happens. It happens rarely. Btw, this is on a PIII 800MHz with 256MB RAM and
> _lots_ of space ;-).
> 
> Command like cd that don't need to run any exes work well. But the rest like
> ls, pwd are all slow. No clue why that's so.

Note that the OP was talking specifically about `cd'.

- Raw text -