Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!amdahl!rtech!cpsc6a!crs
From: crs@cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (I'm a programmer, not a Doctor!!) Seaman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Why use VD0:  (Was: Re: VD0 help)
Message-ID: <2333@cpsc6a.att.com>
Date: 8 Sep 89 19:56:12 GMT
References: <935@wsu-cs.uucp> <11102@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <2500@abaa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T (CPSC), Oakland, CA
Lines: 18

esker@abaa.uucp (Lawrence Esker) writes:
< I was wondering (not meant to be a flame), but why use VD0: anymore?
< What does it offer that RAD: doesn't?  Why did Perry upgrade it after
< RAD: came out?
< 
< Comparative data and other responses are welcome.  Just wondering!
< --
< UseNet Path: __!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!abaa!esker  ==  esker@abaa.UUCP

My guess would be that it simply provides the one thing that RAD:
doesn't, namely a dynamically allocated ramdisk.  This is a *very*
handy feature to have around.

-- 
Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman |        ///
crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or>           |       ///            Only AMIGA
...!att!cpsc6a!crs                |   \\\///         Makes it Possible!
The Home of the Killer Smiley     |    \XX/