Message-Id: <9702241821.AA09526@gnu.sdsp.mc.xerox.com>
To: Roger Ivie <ivie AT cc DOT usu DOT edu>
Cc: opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject: Re: [opendos] OS advancements and old technology: My viewpoint. 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:39:29 PST."
             <1 DOT 5 DOT 4 DOT 16 DOT 19970221092645 DOT 2a772772 AT intergate> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:21:36 PST
From: "Marty Leisner" <leisner AT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com>
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.
> 

Direct screen writes are an interesting thing...for some reason,
people like to code direct hardware writes (even in some C programs).

I used an MsDos Machine via ctty: to a serial port which I then
used on a windowed workstation back in about 1985.

I was amazed at how many "benign" applications broke.

The bandwidth from DOS writes versus BIOS writes is far faster than
the eye can see even on an PC/AT. (never used a PC).

-- 
marty
leisner AT sdsp DOT mc DOT xerox DOT com