Title: 2 pings of 1 are not equal to 1 ping of 2
Text / 523066680
::
Here ping1 refers to ping -n 1 127.1>nul; ping2 refers to ping -n 2 127.1>nul
Accidentally discovered that for /l %%a in (1,1,2) do (ping -n 1 127.1>nul) is quite different in waiting time from ping -n 2 127.1>nul, so they are not equal.
I tried changing the 2 in the for to 9 and it still didn't take more than a second. I felt this "precision" was still okay, so later I always used it when writing special effects. When I started learning batch processing, I was very random, and then simplified it to
for /l %%a in (1,1,2) do (ping -n>nul)
Finally, when I posted the code in the group, someone asked why not just ping -n 2 127.1>nul (hereinafter referred to as ping2)
I replied that the time of ping2 is greater than the time of two ping1s, and the effect of two ping1s is just right.
Later, HAT said that directly "ping -n>nul" is a wrong sentence. If the effect achieved by ping -n>nul is the case, then other commands should be the same. So taking attrib as an example, I tried it and the time was really the same, so I left the line dizzy.
Alas, I forgot to refute. If you use echo, you have to do it hundreds of times. Attrib also has a little delay just right.
The following sorts out personal views:
Later I saw some batch processing examples: batch processing that reads articles character by character and some special effects, etc.
In order to achieve a suitable speed, some use thousands of echos, and some use generating sleep.xxx
I think the method I advocate is better. Let's use code:
How about? Is the typing speed just right?
For this typing effect, the disadvantage of thousands of echos,>nul is that the number of executions is large, and the delay time may be different for different computers.
ping -n 2 127.1>nul has too long a typing delay time.
I have nothing to say about generating sleep, it's just that I don't get used to it....
The advantage of for /l %%b in (1,1,N) do (ping -n 1 127.0>nul) is that the time for 1-9 times is all within 1 second. You can choose 1-9 times to achieve a more detailed delay effect. Compared with echo, the number of times is easier to choose, and the effect is generally the same for different computers.
(Range is generally selected from 1-9, and if it is larger, it is close to seconds...)
Text / 523066680
::
Here ping1 refers to ping -n 1 127.1>nul; ping2 refers to ping -n 2 127.1>nul
Accidentally discovered that for /l %%a in (1,1,2) do (ping -n 1 127.1>nul) is quite different in waiting time from ping -n 2 127.1>nul, so they are not equal.
I tried changing the 2 in the for to 9 and it still didn't take more than a second. I felt this "precision" was still okay, so later I always used it when writing special effects. When I started learning batch processing, I was very random, and then simplified it to
for /l %%a in (1,1,2) do (ping -n>nul)
Finally, when I posted the code in the group, someone asked why not just ping -n 2 127.1>nul (hereinafter referred to as ping2)
I replied that the time of ping2 is greater than the time of two ping1s, and the effect of two ping1s is just right.
Later, HAT said that directly "ping -n>nul" is a wrong sentence. If the effect achieved by ping -n>nul is the case, then other commands should be the same. So taking attrib as an example, I tried it and the time was really the same, so I left the line dizzy.
Alas, I forgot to refute. If you use echo, you have to do it hundreds of times. Attrib also has a little delay just right.
The following sorts out personal views:
Later I saw some batch processing examples: batch processing that reads articles character by character and some special effects, etc.
In order to achieve a suitable speed, some use thousands of echos, and some use generating sleep.xxx
I think the method I advocate is better. Let's use code:
@echo off
color 4e
set str= cn-dos 523066680 祝 大 家 新 年 快 乐 ！
for /l %%a in (0,1,50) do (
call,set /p x=%%str:~%%a,1%%<nul
for /l %%b in (1,1,5) do (ping -n 1 127.0>nul)
)
exit
How about? Is the typing speed just right?
For this typing effect, the disadvantage of thousands of echos,>nul is that the number of executions is large, and the delay time may be different for different computers.
ping -n 2 127.1>nul has too long a typing delay time.
I have nothing to say about generating sleep, it's just that I don't get used to it....
The advantage of for /l %%b in (1,1,N) do (ping -n 1 127.0>nul) is that the time for 1-9 times is all within 1 second. You can choose 1-9 times to achieve a more detailed delay effect. Compared with echo, the number of times is easier to choose, and the effect is generally the same for different computers.
(Range is generally selected from 1-9, and if it is larger, it is close to seconds...)
Recent Ratings for This Post
（ 1 in total）
Click for details
| Rater | Score | Time |
|---|---|---|
| HAT | +4 | 2008-12-28 00:31 |
