Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Why not use RAD:? (Re: ASDG VD0: DOES NOT WORK!) Message-ID: <6864@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 22 Oct 90 11:53:49 GMT References: <46200136@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <9307@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 17 In article <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > Why are people still searching for a recoverable ram disk? "It's in > there!" If there's something horribly wrong with RAD:, I'm not sure I > want to know at this late date. Is my computer about to develop dry rot > or something? Well, if you can afford a 6.5 meg RAD: you probably wouldn't have noticed, but RAD: is a *fixed* size RAM disk. You have to decide ahead of time just how much you're going to slosh into there. One of the great things about RAM: and its emulators (VD0:, VDK:) is that you *don't* have to lock down a fixed chunk of RAM for the purpose. (as for me, I just go right to my Quantum... fastest bloody drive I've ever seen in a PC. Dicking with a RAM disk is just painting the lily.) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .