X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From:	"one2001boy AT yahoo DOT com" <one2001boy AT yahoo DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: latest ls.exe version in XP problem
References:	<6jKbd.13476$nj DOT 4016 AT newssvr13 DOT news DOT prodigy DOT com> <416fec3d AT news DOT upm DOT es>
In-Reply-To:	<416fec3d@news.upm.es>
Lines:	38
Message-ID:	<EsSbd.30793$QJ3.6857@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	69.104.245.224
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT prodigy DOT net
X-Trace:	newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1097855908 ST000 69.104.245.224 (Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:58:28 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:58:28 EDT
Organization:	SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1:	[[OSS_GGVJB_GZI]]RKB_UDAZZ\DPCPDLXUNNHXIJYWZUYICD^RAQBKZQTZTX\_I[^G_KGFNON[ZOE_AZNVO^\XGGNTCIRPIJH[@RQKBXLRZ AT CD^HKANYVW AT RLGEZEJN@\_WZJBNZYYKVIOR]T]MNMG_Z[YVWSCH_Q[GPC_A AT CARQVXDSDA^M]@DRVUM AT RBM
Date:	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:58:28 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Manuel Collado wrote:
> one2001boy AT yahoo DOT com wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> Just noticed several issues about ls.exe. Any help is appreciated.
> 
> 
> ls.exe works OK in my XP machine. I'm using:
> 
> bash-2.04$ ls --version
> ls (fileutils) 4.1
> ...
> 

Yes. I am using the same version.
>>
>> For the latest ls.exe under Windows XP, there are three issues.
>>
>> 1) under a directory with one thousand files,
>> run command "ls -F" will take 1 minute to start to display the files 
>> and directory. using "ls" has no such long delay. using "dir" has no 
>> such a problem either.
> 
> 
> ls -F takes 1~2 seconds to show the content of c:\windows\system32 with 
> 1881 objects in my machine
> 

I have 2559 items, it wait for 10 seconds to start to display  files in 
XP 3.0 Ghz, 512 M memory. I think the algorith for ls.exe  might be 
optimized  so that it can display some processed files and directory 
first, not wait till all files are processed. If the directory has more 
files, there will be more waiting time.

dir can display the file and directory, "ls" cannot tell the difference 
between file and direcotry in the display. thus, "ls -F" is preferred. 
but it is too slow to use for directory with thousandss of files.

- Raw text -