>> If I can find some time to do it, I would like to investigate why it is >> slow. ms-dos was written in assembly until ms-dos 4, however they kept >> much of it after that and as I said, ms-dos 6.22 works much faster on an >> XT. Is freedos written in assembly as well ? FreeDOS Kernel/Command.com is 99.5% C. and that's the relevant part.
> I believe it's almost entirely C, which could explain the lower > performance, BS. whenever FreeDOS is notably slower (or faster) then any other DOS, its due to better/different disk caching; anyDOS spends hardly any cyles inside the kernel in *real world applications* the noticed slower performance on a IBM XT is probably due to FreeDOS is too pessimistic about disk changed. > although even MS-DOS 5 was mostly written in C. BS. the MSDOS Kernel (at least up to 6.22) is 100 % in MASM (in some queer assembler macro language). some (but far from all) utilities are in C C: ADDDRV ATTRIB BACKUP COMP EXPAND FC FDISK HELP JOIN LABEL MEM REPLACE RESTORE SETVER SUBST INTERLNK ASM: APPEND ASSIGN CHKDSK DEBUG DISKCOMP DISKCOPY DOSKEY EDLIN EXE2BIN FASTOPEN FIND FORMAT GRAFTABL GRAPHICS KEYB LOADFIX MODE MORE NLSFUNC PRINT PRINTFIX RECOVER SHARE SORT SYS TREE XCOPY DISPLAY COUNTRY POWER RAMDRIVE SMARTDRV > Heck, I've read that parts as early as 3.1 were mostly written in C. unlikely. AFAIR at this time there were no reasonable DOS C compilers available. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
