jakg1190@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J. 'Priapus' Kmiecik) (03/01/91)
There has been some talk here about which hard drive cache is best to use with Windows 3. I have Norton Utilities 5 and have used the fast-cache version (ncache-f) included in the package for the DOS environment. How well will this cache program work with windows and how does it compare with Smartdrive.sys or other Windows-capable caches? Are there any potential problems using ncache-f and windows? Thanks for your help. -Joe -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Kmiecik "There is only one thing worse E-mail: jakg1190@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu than being talked about, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that is not being talked about."
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb28.185736.17694@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jakg1190@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J. 'Priapus' Kmiecik) writes: >There has been some talk here about which hard drive cache is best to use >with Windows 3. I have Norton Utilities 5 and have used the fast-cache >version (ncache-f) included in the package for the DOS environment. How >well will this cache program work with windows and how does it compare with >Smartdrive.sys or other Windows-capable caches? Are there any potential >problems using ncache-f and windows? I've only been using it a short while, but I find that HyperDisk Cache will blow away smartdrive, PC Tools Cache, Norton Cache, and just about any other cache out there, although I've heard good things about the PC Kwic cache. It's faster and it has more options than any of the other caches, and it is fully Windows 3.0 compatible, and includes such nice features as buffered writes, floppy caching, use of extended, expanded, or regular memory, and more. The best thing is, it is shareware, so you should be able to find a version of it somewhere and try it out. I downloaded it from a local BBS, so I don't know if it's on any ftp sites. The latest version is 4.20, I believe.
ISSHST@BYUVM.BITNET (03/01/91)
If you're tight on memory, like I am, Smartdrv is the only way to go. Windows can steal memory from Smartdrv if memory is getting low. I doubt Norton cache can be dynamically adjusted by Windows.
jrodda@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Jonathan Rodda) (03/01/91)
Does anyone know where one can find HyperDisk on an FTP site? Your help will be greatly appreciated. Jonathan
altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb28.185736.17694@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jakg1190@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J. 'Priapus' Kmiecik) writes: >There has been some talk here about which hard drive cache is best to use >with Windows 3. I have Norton Utilities 5 and have used the fast-cache >version (ncache-f) included in the package for the DOS environment. How >well will this cache program work with windows and how does it compare with >Smartdrive.sys or other Windows-capable caches? Are there any potential >problems using ncache-f and windows? Joe: You can't use ncache-f with Windows due to the way it handles memory. ncache-f requires EMS memory. If you have EMS memory either from a board or a driver (such as QEMM) then it will use that memory for the cache. If you don't have pre-defined EMS memory then ncache-f loads its own driver to mamnage the memory. So you ask what is the problem. Well, Windows disables access to external uncooperative EMS memory drivers when it starts up. Therefore, ncache-f is no longer able to access its memory. And you system will crash. I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the perfect cache. So far as I have stated earlier I feel the best package is Hyperdisk. PC Week agrees, with one reservation. Hyperdisk is not compatible with all drives. This is because it does not use BIOS calls but instead goes directly to the hardware. hope this helps. -- - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)
d89os@efd.lth.se ((Mr)) (03/02/91)
>In article <1991Feb28.185736.17694@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jakg1190@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J. 'Priapus' Kmiecik) writes: >>There has been some talk here about which hard drive cache is best to use >>with Windows 3. I have Norton Utilities 5 and have used the fast-cache >>version (ncache-f) included in the package for the DOS environment. How >>well will this cache program work with windows and how does it compare with >>Smartdrive.sys or other Windows-capable caches? Are there any potential >>problems using ncache-f and windows? I've been using ncache-f, and it works perfectly with Windows in STANDARD MODE (much faster than SMARTDRV, especially on floppy read/writes). In the ENHANCED MODE it interferes with WIndows' permanent swap file, at least on those machines I use. The solution is to set up a separate drive for the swap file, and disable caching for that drive. (You don't want the swap file cached !) In article <1991Feb28.233408.27902@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >I've only been using it a short while, but I find that HyperDisk Cache will >blow away smartdrive, PC Tools Cache, Norton Cache, and just about any other >cache out there, although I've heard good things about the PC Kwic cache. > >It's faster and it has more options than any of the other caches, and it >is fully Windows 3.0 compatible, and includes such nice features as buffered >writes, floppy caching, use of extended, expanded, or regular memory, and >more. > >The best thing is, it is shareware, so you should be able to find a version >of it somewhere and try it out. I downloaded it from a local BBS, so I don't >know if it's on any ftp sites. The latest version is 4.20, I believe. Does HyperDisk solve the problem wotj the swap file mentioned above?? In what way is it better than Norton's cache? The features mentioned above are supported by Norton. -- (Mr) Ola Sigurdson Internet: d89os@efd.lth.se
mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar2.023527.20342@lth.se> d89os@efd.lth.se ((Mr) Ola Sigurdson) writes: < <I've been using ncache-f, and it works perfectly with Windows in STANDARD <MODE (much faster than SMARTDRV, especially on floppy read/writes). <In the ENHANCED MODE it interferes with WIndows' permanent swap file, <at least on those machines I use. The solution is to set up a separate drive <for the swap file, and disable caching for that drive. (You don't want <the swap file cached !) < <Does HyperDisk solve the problem wotj the swap file mentioned above?? <In what way is it better than Norton's cache? The features mentioned above <are supported by Norton. I have downloaded HYPERDSK 4.20 and tried it out. Nice program!! It doesn't exhibit any problems with Windows SwapFiles, either temporary or permanent. However, I have noticed that Desqview often hangs when I use the optional "staged writes" feature. Easy to fix.. I have a batch file to disable the feature on-the-fly, invoke DV, and on exit from DV it reenables it. HYPERDSK is Much better at memory sharing than the latest Super PC Kwik, and the staged write feature works great with Windows. It is somewhat slower than Super PC Kwik, because the "eliminate redundant writes" feature is not supported in the HYPERDKX.EXE model, which is the only model that works with QEMM. In any event, it is incredibly faster than SMARTDRV, but then, what isn't? -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
yoshida@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Stuart Yoshida) (03/05/91)
altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: > [...] > I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the > perfect cache. So far as I have stated earlier I feel the best package > is Hyperdisk. PC Week agrees, with one reservation. Hyperdisk is not > compatible with all drives. This is because it does not use BIOS calls > but instead goes directly to the hardware. > -- > - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu) > ---------- I just talked with the author of HyperDisk, and he said, "Hyperdisk uses BIOS calls ONLY. It's funny how rumors get started, isn't it?" So whatever problems HyperDisk has, it's *NOT* because it goes directly to the hardware. It does not circumvent the software interface protocols; it definitely uses BIOS calls. -- Stuart "Every place around the world it seemed the same Can't hear the rhythm for the drums Everybody wants to look the other way When something wicked this way comes." --Jeremiah Blues by STING UUCP: {hp-sdd, hp-pcd, csu-cs, edison, hplabs}!hpfcla!yoshida Internet: yoshida%hpfcla@hplabs.HP.COM VOICE: (303) 229-2324
altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (03/06/91)
In article <7450004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> yoshida@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Stuart Yoshida) writes: >altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >> [...] >> I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the >> perfect cache. So far as I have stated earlier I feel the best package >> is Hyperdisk. PC Week agrees, with one reservation. Hyperdisk is not >> compatible with all drives. This is because it does not use BIOS calls >> but instead goes directly to the hardware. >> -- >> - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu) >> ---------- > > I just talked with the author of HyperDisk, and he said, "Hyperdisk > uses BIOS calls ONLY. It's funny how rumors get started, isn't it?" > > So whatever problems HyperDisk has, it's *NOT* because it goes > directly to the hardware. It does not circumvent the software > interface protocols; it definitely uses BIOS calls. > >-- > > Stuart Just to qualify where I got the info to begin with is PC Week's review of caches and Windows. They give hyperdisk a poor rating because of hardware incompatibility which they state is caused by Hyperdisk's not using BIOS calls. To quote p84 of the 2/18/91 PC Week: Discussion about why Power Cache was given highest rating even though Hyperdsk is faster. "The two products differed not in their performance, but in the compatibility advantage that Power Cache Plus offers through its use of DOS-file I/O in lieu of the device specific BIOS-level commands used by HyperDsk." -- - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar5.235745.1928@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >Just to qualify where I got the info to begin with is PC Week's review >of caches and Windows. They give hyperdisk a poor rating because of >hardware incompatibility which they state is caused by Hyperdisk's not ^^^ >using BIOS calls. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >To quote p84 of the 2/18/91 PC Week: Discussion about why Power Cache >was given highest rating even though Hyperdsk is faster. "The two products >differed not in their performance, but in the compatibility advantage that >Power Cache Plus offers through its use of DOS-file I/O in lieu of the >device specific BIOS-level commands used by HyperDsk." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I dunno, Jeff. Sure sounds to me like PC Week said they used BIOS.
jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu (Jeff Rife) (03/07/91)
In article <7450004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> yoshida@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Stuart Yoshida) writes: >altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >> [...] >> I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the >> perfect cache. So far as I have stated earlier I feel the best package >> is Hyperdisk. PC Week agrees, with one reservation. Hyperdisk is not >> compatible with all drives. This is because it does not use BIOS calls >> but instead goes directly to the hardware. >> -- >> - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu) >> ---------- > > I just talked with the author of HyperDisk, and he said, "Hyperdisk > uses BIOS calls ONLY. It's funny how rumors get started, isn't it?" > > So whatever problems HyperDisk has, it's *NOT* because it goes > directly to the hardware. It does not circumvent the software > interface protocols; it definitely uses BIOS calls. Whatever is going on, PC Week is correct. Hyperdisk has compatiblity problems, but every disk cache I have tried has a problem with my hardware. Running 386Enh, I run a DOS app, and try to read/write my 45 MB removable SCSI hard disk, and the machine hangs. The following caches cause this problem: CACHE TIME SPENT TROUBLESHOOTING ----- -------------------------- Norton cache 5 hours, plus 1-1/2 hour call to tech support PCKwik 1-1/2 hours (couldn't run in 386Enh at all) VCACHE 8+ hours, purchased because their tech support said it would work Hyperdisk 2 hours, I had given up by the time I got it from cica I use SMARTDRV. It is a performance nightmare running certain DOS apps, but they do run :-| Note to Microsoft programmers who follow this group...RECODE SMARTDRV FOR MORE SPEED. -- Jeff Rife P.O. Box 3836 | "Because he was human; because he had goodness; College Station, TX 77844 | because he was moral they called him insane. (409) 823-2710 | Delusions of grandeur; visons of splendor; jlr1801@aim1.tamu.edu | A manic-depressive, he walks in the rain."
altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (03/08/91)
In article <44380214@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >In article <1991Mar5.235745.1928@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >>Just to qualify where I got the info to begin with is PC Week's review >>of caches and Windows. They give hyperdisk a poor rating because of >>hardware incompatibility which they state is caused by Hyperdisk's not > ^^^ >>using BIOS calls. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>To quote p84 of the 2/18/91 PC Week: Discussion about why Power Cache >>was given highest rating even though Hyperdsk is faster. "The two products >>differed not in their performance, but in the compatibility advantage that >>Power Cache Plus offers through its use of DOS-file I/O in lieu of the >>device specific BIOS-level commands used by HyperDsk." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >I dunno, Jeff. Sure sounds to me like PC Week said they used BIOS. Okay, so I screwed up! It happens. The point I was trying to make was that Hyperdsk does have some compatibility problems. There is a difference between BIOS-level commands which may be located on the device controller card and BIOS commands located in the BIOS of the machine when you buy it. This was what I was trying to say. Keep in mind that I didn't have the article in front of me when I originally wrote this. I do try to be accurate when I post. -- - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)