Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:39:29 -0700
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970221092645.2a772772@intergate>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
From: Roger Ivie <ivie AT cc DOT usu DOT edu>
Subject: Re: [opendos] OS advancements and old technology: My viewpoint.
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

Sorry for the delay; I've been out of town.

Mike Harris said:
>You neglected to quote my full message.  I stated that ls in
>Linux runs faster than DIR in DOS.  Meaning that DIR in DOS uses
>direct screen writes (ala 4DOS).  Therefore either ls uses direct
>screen writes in Linux, or else the Linux term I/O routines are
>faster than the 16 bit code used in DOS/4DOS.  My entire point
>being that Linux doesn't necessarily HAVE to have direct writes
>to be fast.

I don't think COMMAND.COM needs direct screen writes to have a fast DIR, either.
A really good console device driver should be able to make DOS blazing fast
as well. As an example of a really good DOS console driver, take a look at
FANSI-Console.

>Naw, I'll just use Linux.  Oh, and I'll code direct screen
>writing into COMMAND.COM.

Have fun.

Roger Ivie
ivie AT cc DOT usu DOT edu