LA>> This is the usual case of MS's "Do as I say, not as I do", since 
 LA>> Command.Com continues to use FCBs for fast directlry deletions, 
 LA>> just as I do.

 LE>> Try it under MS-DOS v6.x. Then try it in a Win 95 or 98 DOS "window"
 LE>> (or with the system booted to the MS-DOS 7 that Win 9x runs on top of).

 LA> You might want to try that yourself...my routines have been used    
 LA> under those conditions for years.

JdBP> I think that Leonard is trying to make the point that using 
    > FCBs for "fast deletions" is pointless in those 
    > environments, because it *isn't* actually faster that doing 
    > things the more up-to-date way using a simple 
    > findfirst/findnext loop.

   I *have* compared it Johnathan, and it's a whole big pile faster 
   than running a loop, which, of course, is the backup routine in 
   case the drive in question is HPFS (since warp intentionally 
   traps if you try this on HPFS with a wildcard spec).

   Think about it...which is faster, looping 500 times to do a 
   findnext/handle delete, or once to nuke the entire directory 
   contents?

   If BillieSoft had come up with some magical way to duplicate the 
   speed without using FCBs, they would have removed this from their 
   CLI a long time ago...

                                       LRA


 -- SPEED 2.01 #2720: Thank you for pressing the self destruct button...

--- Maximus/2 3.01
278/111