> On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 11:13:24PM -0400, SUPRDAVE_at_aol.com wrote:
> > 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 have trouble buying this too, but if the CPU and disk drive speed are
> totally out of whack with one another, the disk could be so slow that the
> CPU can inflate N KB of data to 2*N KB faster than the disk can read 2*N KB
> of uncompressed data.
>
> Anyway IBM is still in the DOS business, and I gotta respect them just
> for that! The latest flavor I know of is "PC DOS 2000", nice to see some
> recent work being done, even if they re-used the previous documentation
> (it's a PC DOS 7 manual with a sticker on the front that says PC DOS 2000).
>
> John Wilson
> D Bit
>
>
I think PCDOS 2000 would've just been PCDOS 7.1 if it wasn't for the y2k
marketing fever.
It's interesting that they've been using the Ramboost from Central Point
Software in it years after CPS got swallowed and eradicated by Symantec.
Bill
--
bpechter_at_monmouth.com | Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
| Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
| BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 05:54:41 BST