Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!andy From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Why not use RAD:? Message-ID: <15350@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 23 Oct 90 19:26:17 GMT References: <46200136@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <9307@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Oct22.033330.22005@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <6864@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Oct22.160121.9197@ucselx.sdsu.edu> Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 16 In article <1990Oct22.160121.9197@ucselx.sdsu.edu> maxc0849@ucselx.sdsu.edu (InnerTangent) writes: > p.s. Now tell me, is there a *fixed* recoverable ram drive that > could handle -more- then one recov. ramdrive mounted at the > same time? (I don't think RAD: could do that) The new improved 2.0 version of RAD does support multiple units. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "He always did have a keen grasp of the obvious" Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.