In a message dated 5/24/00 10:05:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard_at_idcomm.com writes:
> I've never encountered that version 6.3. I've got a few sets of install
> disketted for DOS 6.21, which was made up for DELL, specifically without
the
> compression support in it or among its utilities. I, havning spent much
> time testing the more popular compression schemes, am an avid user of
> compression. I've found it to be no more problem-prone than plain-vanilla
> DOS, yet the maintenance tools (scandisk) seem to work better on compressed
> volumes than on uncompressed. Compression does seem to enhance disk
> subsystem preformance. If you have a solid backup regimen, you should
never
> have to worry about data loss just because you use compression. I found
> that DRVSPACE yielded about a 15% performance increase and had no added
risk
> of system failure. I also found that the risk of data loss was actually
> lower (based on my substantial but still relatively small data sample)
than
> that with uncompressed data, probably due to the more effective error
> management tools.
>
I use pcdos 6.3 and 7.0. much better than msdos i think, and i prefer the
editor. how in the world can one realise 15% performance increase running
disk compression? logic would indicate a degradation since you are running an
extra task to compress the hard drive not to mention less memory space in the
UMBs to load the compression driver high. i do not use any sort of disk
compression and never recommend it to anyone. i supported end users, and
there were too many times when users compressed their hard drives, and ended
up hosing them. only option to them was fdisk and reinstall. K.I.S.S.
DB Young ICQ: 29427634
hurry, hurry, step right up! see the computers you used as a kid!
http://members.aol.com/suprdave/classiccmp/museum.htm
Received on Wed May 24 2000 - 22:13:24 BST