klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) (05/31/91)
Is there anybody using Windows 3.0 and HyperDisk? Is HyperDisk really better than SmartDrive?
gg2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Guy Gallo) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May31.060613.22766@milton.u.washington.edu> klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) writes: >Is there anybody using Windows 3.0 and HyperDisk? >Is HyperDisk really better than SmartDrive? Whenever I test HyperDisk the system seems to get less stable. A man on CIS did extensive testing of the two, and his conclusion was that when configured similarly there is no difference. And that 1500Kb is the optimum size. By configured similarly he means that you do *NOT* have writes cached in Hyper-Disk (since SmartDRV can't cache writes). The speed increase in HyperDISK is almost entirely due to caching writes. Personally, in a system as prone to many hangs as Windows, I feel that write caching is probably a bad idea anyway.
hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.072012.2128@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> gg2@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Guy Gallo) writes: >In article <1991May31.060613.22766@milton.u.washington.edu> klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) writes: >>Is there anybody using Windows 3.0 and HyperDisk? >>Is HyperDisk really better than SmartDrive? > >Whenever I test HyperDisk the system seems to get less stable. >A man on CIS did extensive testing of the two, and his conclusion >was that when configured similarly there is no difference. >And that 1500Kb is the optimum size. > >By configured similarly he means that you do *NOT* have writes >cached in Hyper-Disk (since SmartDRV can't cache writes). >The speed increase in HyperDISK is almost entirely due to >caching writes. >Personally, in a system as prone to many hangs as Windows, I >feel that write caching is probably a bad idea anyway. :) :) I can't read the above without smile on my face. Of course it is as good if you take the best features out ot use. Even a bycycle is as fast as a car if you take the motor out from the car and compete on the flat ground. Perhaps bycycle is even faster :) :) But seriously I have used HyperDisk and Windows 3.0 now for months without any difficulties and would not use Windows without Hydk anymore. It's just GREAT. And the registration process was very fast. I sent a fax from here in Finland and got the registrated software in one week. Thanks HyperWare. -- == Harri Valkama, University of Vaasa, Finland ============================ P.O. Box 700, 65101 VAASA, Finland (tel:+358 61 248426 fax:+358 61 248465) Anon ftp garbo.uwasa.fi (128.214.12.37) & nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100) hv@uwasa.fi hv@finfiles.bitnet /s=hv/o=uwasa/prdm=inet/amdm=fumail/c=fi
user2@cgevs3.cem.msu.edu (Stephen Medlin) (06/02/91)
In article <1991May31.060613.22766@milton.u.washington.edu>, klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) writes: >Is there anybody using Windows 3.0 and HyperDisk? >Is HyperDisk really better than SmartDrive? From my colleage's and my experience, HYPERDISK is orders of magnitude better than SmartDrive. I also happened to be in a book store a couple of months ago and read in one of the Windows Books (I forget which one, but one similar to Peter Norton's, QUE, or so) that showed performance of PC-KWICK, HYPERDISK, and SMARTDRIVE. Hyperdisk was one of the best ones. Interestingly enough, SmartDrive's performance plateaued out around 512 K while Hyperdisk has performance gains all the way to about 2MB before it started to plateau. My colleague ran some performance tests (using PC-Mag's benchmarks) outside of Windows and compared the performances of Hyperdisk and Smartdrive. Unfortunately, I don't have the results at hand, but Hyperdisk ran rings around SmartDrive. If you (or anyone else) are interested in these rough benchmarks, let me know and I will post them here. Stephen Medlin
dludi@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Darmawan Ludirdja) (06/02/91)
klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) writes: >Is there anybody using Windows 3.0 and HyperDisk? >Is HyperDisk really better than SmartDrive? I tried to use HyperDisk replacing SmartDrive but have some problem when running non windows application such as Lotus 3.1. Darmawan dlg6627@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
al@well.sf.ca.us (Alfred Fontes) (06/04/91)
>From my colleage's and my experience, HYPERDISK is orders of magnitude better >than SmartDrive. I have to agree. I cache the writes, and have had no problems, although I do sometimes force a write when I feel that I'm entering dangerous ground. By the way, I think that the Hyperdisk nag screens are terribly rude and hostile. My reaction was, "why should I send any money to these jerks?" And in fact, I delayed registering for quite a long time for that reason. I was tempted to never register and keep downloading new versions, but my Catholic guilt got the best of me.
jmcn@castle.ed.ac.uk (J McNicol) (06/04/91)
In article <25206@well.sf.ca.us> al@well.sf.ca.us (Alfred Fontes) writes: >>From my colleage's and my experience, HYPERDISK is orders of magnitude better >>than SmartDrive. > >I have to agree. I cache the writes, and have had no problems, although >I do sometimes force a write when I feel that I'm entering dangerous ground. I would also agree, especially since I'm using a comparitatively slow machine (386SX, 40MB disc) and having 2MB of RAM cache makes a big difference. I have had no trouble attributable to to Hyperdisk. > >By the way, I think that the Hyperdisk nag screens are terribly rude and >hostile. My reaction was, "why should I send any money to these jerks?" >And in fact, I delayed registering for quite a long time for that >reason. I was tempted to never register and keep downloading new versions, >but my Catholic guilt got the best of me. Now there I would disagree. I registered BECAUSE of the nag screens, I'm afraid to say. Without at least an opening nag screen, there's not much incentive to register; annoying though they are, they seem quite justified. Julian Smart Scottish Crop Research Institute jmcn@castle.ed.ac.uk
dalbrich@oregon.uoregon.edu (06/05/91)
I do not wish to start a debate on this subject, however I am posting this message in hopes writers of shareware will hear this opinion. I loved the concept of shareware when it was first introduced and still do. Having the ability to really play with software before putting money on the line is great! In this way, I know exactly what I am getting. Almost as much as I enjoy this, I like the trust the authors give to individuals which enables them to only pay for products they use. This trust is totally non-traditional and is part of what makes sharewhere really cool. We are professionals and should not have a problem paying for products we use. The nagware and disabled shareware is taking us back to the retail scene where all you get is a demo, and can't enjoy using the software before your purchase. -Dan In article <10791@castle.ed.ac.uk>, jmcn@castle.ed.ac.uk (J McNicol) writes: > In article <25206@well.sf.ca.us> al@well.sf.ca.us (Alfred Fontes) writes: >>>From my colleage's and my experience, HYPERDISK is orders of magnitude better >>>than SmartDrive. >> >>I have to agree. I cache the writes, and have had no problems, although >>I do sometimes force a write when I feel that I'm entering dangerous ground. > > I would also agree, especially since I'm using a comparitatively slow > machine (386SX, 40MB disc) and having 2MB of RAM cache makes a big difference. > I have had no trouble attributable to to Hyperdisk. >> >>By the way, I think that the Hyperdisk nag screens are terribly rude and >>hostile. My reaction was, "why should I send any money to these jerks?" >>And in fact, I delayed registering for quite a long time for that >>reason. I was tempted to never register and keep downloading new versions, >>but my Catholic guilt got the best of me. > > Now there I would disagree. I registered BECAUSE of the nag screens, I'm > afraid to say. Without at least an opening nag screen, there's not much > incentive to register; annoying though they are, they seem quite justified. > > Julian Smart > Scottish Crop Research Institute > jmcn@castle.ed.ac.uk
al@well.sf.ca.us (Alfred Fontes) (06/06/91)
jmcn@castle.ed.ac.uk (J McNicol) writes: >Now there I would disagree. I registered BECAUSE of the nag screens... I don't have any problem with all nag screens -- only obnoxious ones.