Hi
"Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> I have been seeing a number of comments being posted here about this
SH> file completion feature, available with some programs and OS's.
SH> I don't understand why anyone would want to have the additional
SH> overhead required of such a feature if all it can do for you is to
SH> save you a couple of keypresses now and then.
The overhead is not noticeable ....
I love the completion (used here with 4dos and under linux with bash)
You want to look through the cache ... (located
c:\progr\inet\browser\arachne\cache)
you type c:\p <TAB> i <TAB> b <TAB> a <TAB> c <TAB>
there you are ...
SH> Of course I realize that such a feature would be somewhat nice for
SH> some people to have, but is it really worth it in terms of the
SH> additional overhead for system resources that could otherwise be
SH> devoted to something much more useful?
If you would use a multitasking OS than this would make a bit sense ...
(not much because the overhead is a minimum)
but under DOS there's allways just one main task running.
So there is no other task there that could use the freed (by not using
completion) CPU time.
IMHO :)
(If under Linux or even Windows a program is waiting for something [key
pressed, HDD ready ...] than the task is transferred to blocked mode ...
and another task gets the CPU ... if the event happened [key pressed ...]
the first task is reanimated and given the CPU.
Under DOS the wating task constantly (in a loop) watches out for the
event. This is not considered useful by me. :)
SH> Regards,
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
-=> If you want it done right, let do it <=-
