oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu (06/26/91)
Does anyone know if Stacker is compatible with Dos 5.0? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Oster <U09762@uicvm.uic.edu> (06/26/91)
Stacker and DOS 5.0 are very much compatible. I ran Stacker under DOS 3.3 and it was good, but under 5.0 its even better - mostly because of the large partition support. Under DOS 3.3, my 100mb disk ended up as ten drives of varying sizes when using Stacker. Now I have one _big_ D: drive to put everything on. The speed seems about the same as under 3.3. I highly recommend the combination Steve
gettys@yacht.enet.dec.com (Bob Gettys) (06/26/91)
Yes, Stacker runs under dos 5 just fine. One caution with Stacker (and probably any other compression mechanism), good backup procedures are mandatory. Anytime you put another layer between you and the hardware, there is more chance for things to go wrong. I am happy with my uses of stacker, but I have had to rebuild the system a few times when I've done something that fouled it up. Trying new utilities and disk caches and other stuff that is supposed to enhance your operating doesn't always go as planned. Thus the backups become needed. In a st able environment - Stacker is also quite stable. /s/ Bob p.s. My average gain is about 1.5 times the space - this is mostly exe type files.
yiky@bmerh768.BNR.CA (YikHon Yu) (06/26/91)
In article <16830.2867832a@zeus.unomaha.edu>, oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu writes: |> Does anyone know if Stacker is compatible with Dos 5.0? |> |> |> -- |> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |> Sharon Lindsey O'Neil "I could be happy/I could be quite naive/ |> Bitnet: oneil@unomai1 It's only me and my shadow/Happy in our |> Internet: oneil@zeus.unomaha.edu make believe/Soon." -- Tears for Fears |> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am using the coprocesser version of Stacker with DOS 5.0 and 386^max without any problems. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | YikHon Yu | | Bell-Northern Reaerch Ltd. | | Phone: (613) 765-4894 | Internet: | P.O. Box 3511, Station C, | | FAX: (613) 765-2907 | yiky@bnr.ca | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7 | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ronald@ee.WPI.EDU (RoN SkoletskY) (06/27/91)
In article <91177.102918U09762@uicvm.uic.edu> U09762@uicvm.uic.edu (Steve Oster) writes: >Stacker and DOS 5.0 are very much compatible. I ran Stacker >under DOS 3.3 and it was good, but under 5.0 its even better - >mostly because of the large partition support. Under DOS 3.3, >my 100mb disk ended up as ten drives of varying sizes when >using Stacker. Now I have one _big_ D: drive to put everything >on. > >The speed seems about the same as under 3.3. I highly >recommend the combination I've got a 12 MHz 286 with 2 20Meg Seagate ST225 hard drives. I was thinking of selling the two and spending an extra $250 - $300 for a larger 80-100 Meg drive but I could also get Stacker without the coprocessor board to save a bit of $$$. Does anyone know how Stacker's speed is when running on such a system without a Math Coprocessor? I was told (by someone not very reliable) that you either need a Very fast CPU or a coprocessor if you don't buy the Stacker add-in card. Is that true? I don't want to buy the complete Stacker setup because for only an extra $70 or so I could get the larger hard drive. Any opinions out there??? -- AmaZing / Ron Skoletsky (ronald@ee.wpi.edu) \ Thought-provoking ASCII / EE Dept \ Quote Graphic / Worcester Polytechnic Institute \ Here _____________/ Worcester, MA 01609 \__________________