Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!ricks.enet.dec.com!reisert
From: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: More disk cache tests
Message-ID: <12993@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 1 Jul 90 05:36:53 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 32


In article <1990Jul1.003125.18399@xrtll.uucp>, silver@xrtll.uucp (Hi Ho Silver) writes...
>In <12988@shlump.nac.dec.com> reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) writes:
> 
>[CORETEST results deleted]
> 
>$I don't know what to make of these measurements.  These say that if you're
>$using EXTEnded memory, SMARTDRV is the way to go, but if you're using
>$EXPAnded, then use PC-CACHE 6.03.  The PC-Labs Benchmark Tests clearly show
> 
>   It's apparent that you don't know what to make of these measurements.
>In extended memory, SuperPCK (both versions) beat SMARTDRV in all cases,
>so why do you say SMARTDRV is better?  And in expanded memory, SuperPCK
>beat PC-Cache in all cases, so why do you say PC-Cache is better?

I knew what I wanted to say, I just didn't say it right.  I meant these
comments to refer to the results of CORETEST only.  Of course it's clear
that using the PC Labs benchmarks, Super PC-Kwik comes out on top.  Sorry
for any confusion this might have caused.  The comments about CORETEST being
a poor test are informative and noted.

jim

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital
 Equipment Corporation."

James J. Reisert                Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.         UUCP:     ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert
77 Reed Road
Hudson, MA  01749-2895