wwang@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (60026000) (02/16/89)
On the best Cache program, I have heard that PC-KWIK is the fastest, in
standard memory, extended and expanded. I have not had any experience
with this program, but PC Magazine gave it top honors.
Any one have any ideas/recomendations/sugestions on how to get a CACHE
and a RAM DISK in memory that is not EMS? I heard that PC_KWIK has a
program that will do it, but I have not seen much on it.
From what I am told, there is a problem with puting a RAMDISK and a DISK
CACHE program in the memory above the 640K. There is no standard as to
what to do, so they don't run over each other. Any one have any ideas
as to what to use?
*************************************************************************
USnail: Email:
Weylan Wang wwang@ucscb.ucsc.EDU
UCSC College 8 #608
Santa Cruz, Ca 95064 w.wang GEnie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you driving with your eyes open or are you like using the FORCE?"
-Axel Foley
=========================================================================null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett) (02/17/89)
In article <6374@saturn.ucsc.edu>, wwang@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (60026000) writes: > On the best Cache program, I have heard that PC-KWIK is the fastest, in > standard memory, extended and expanded. I have not had any experience > with this program, but PC Magazine gave it top honors. What's interesting is that the authors of Flash and Pc-Kwik can't figure out how they got their results. Being a VERY satisfied user of Flash, I was a little curious about the results, so I called the publishers of Flash (Software Masters) and spoke with the author (Davie Reed). It seems he was a little irked about the results and called up the Kwik people to see if they knew anything he didn't. They agreed with him that Flash was just as fast as Kwik (and in some instances, faster). Davie is working on getting a correction published - I hope they print one soon, as he's losing money on one heckuva product. Software Masters tech # is (317)253-8088 if you're interested in finding out more about the "screwup". Just wanted to point it out.... > > Any one have any ideas/recomendations/sugestions on how to get a CACHE > and a RAM DISK in memory that is not EMS? I heard that PC_KWIK has a > program that will do it, but I have not seen much on it. Flash can use any combination of Conventional, Extended, Expanded, memory used by ram-disk drivers, and specific segments (For computers with strange memory configurations (extra memory, etc.) For eg. you could set up a 1M cache (Flash supports 32M caches by the way) with 128k of it from conventional (Fastest memory), 512k from extended, and 384k from expanded. Flash comes with the "flash ram-disk" which dynamically takes away/returns space from flash's cache to store files. You can also buy a separate print spooler which also dynamically takes space away from flash's cache and returns it when the buffer is clear. This is definitely the best print spooler I've used. You can control it with keyboard hot keys: clearing the print buffer, inserting form feeds, taking the spooler on/off line, sending printer output to a file, changing the speed of the spooler, etc. VERY nice... > From what I am told, there is a problem with puting a RAMDISK and a DISK > CACHE program in the memory above the 640K. There is no standard as to > what to do, so they don't run over each other. Any one have any ideas > as to what to use? Flash conforms to the ibm vdisk standard and explain various methods of co-existing with other extended memory programs if any problems arise.
twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) (02/21/89)
In article <5748@bsu-cs.UUCP> null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett) writes: >In article <6374@saturn.ucsc.edu>, wwang@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (60026000) writes: >> On the best Cache program, I have heard that PC-KWIK is the fastest, in >> standard memory, extended and expanded. > Anyone use MicroSoft SMARTDrive cache? Why isn't it even mentioned in the comparisons? I use it and it seems reliable and fast. --- Tom Beattie att!hoqaa!twb t.w.beattie@att.com
lmg@hoqax.UUCP (LARRY GEARY) (02/22/89)
In article <5748@bsu-cs.UUCP> null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett) writes: > >What's interesting is that the authors of Flash and Pc-Kwik can't figure out >how they got their results. Being a VERY satisfied user of Flash, I was >a little curious about the results, so I called the publishers of Flash >(Software Masters) and spoke with the author (Davie Reed). It seems he >was a little irked about the results and called up the Kwik people to see >if they knew anything he didn't. They agreed with him that Flash was just >as fast as Kwik (and in some instances, faster). I purchased Flash 5.0 a year or so ago (based on results of an earlier PC Mag comparison) and was quite underwhelmed. Using Flash's own "demo" program as a crude benchmark, I found Flash to be 2-4 times slower than Microsoft's Smartdrive and Compaq's CACHE. The documentation was ignorantly written and didn't seem to correspond to the software. I gave up in frustration and used Smartdrive. Am I missing something? Is Flash 6.0 (or whatever) that much better than what I bought? -- lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg
null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett) (02/23/89)
In article <2178@hoqax.UUCP>, lmg@hoqax.UUCP (LARRY GEARY) writes: > I purchased Flash 5.0 a year or so ago (based on results of an earlier > PC Mag comparison) and was quite underwhelmed. Using Flash's own "demo" program > as a crude benchmark, I found Flash to be 2-4 times slower than Microsoft's > Smartdrive and Compaq's CACHE. ... > Am I missing something? Is Flash 6.0 (or whatever) that much better than > what I bought? If you were comparing Flash 5.0 to cache software of today then, yes, I could definitely see it being slower... 6.0 is MUCH faster than 5.0 and offers quite a few more features. Flash is certainly as fast as PC Kwik that much is certain. You can upgrade for a pretty small fee I believe... $25 sounds right, but I'm not positive.