Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones From: scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: looking for program to break 32MB barrier Message-ID: <135@thor.UUCP> Date: 24 Jan 91 20:03:26 GMT References: <1991Jan21.230226.4874@hub.cs.jmu.edu> <55452@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Distribution: comp Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati Lines: 52 In article , mea1@uark.edu (Mark _E_ Amos) writes: > [ about Ontrack's Disk Manger ] > > WARNING: I have had inconsistent results from the driver mentioned when using > some types of software, and have seen/responded to many postings on the > various ibm.pc newsgroups to the effect that it is probably a BAD idea to > use it. While the problems experienced with it don't seem to have any given > pattern, the one consistency is in the lack of it - the problems occur with all > types of machines and configurations, with random symptoms and occurences. > > I strongly recommend upgrading to DOS 4.01, as it will allow large drive sizes > to be used, and has proven itself far less risky than the aforementioned Disk > Manager driver. Although you raise some good points, I think you've somewhat overstated your case. Of the three common methods of breaking the 32M barrier, my feeling is that Disk Manager is most common, then DOS 4, then Speedstor. Normal programs that access the disk through DOS work just fine with any of them -- the access is completely transparent. The only programs that could have trouble would be those that access the disk using just the BIOS or those that circumvent the BIOS and go straight to the hardware. The only kinds of programs that should be using the BIOS are low-level disk utilities like Norton or SpinRite. Nothing should be going straight to the hardware. Both Disk Manger and Speedstor have been around for quite a while now (significantly longer than DOS 4), and most low-level disk utilities know how to deal with them now. With the single exception of Windows 3.0 (whose manufacturer is not known for working well with others), I know of NO program that had problems with Disk Manager or Speedstor that didn't have exactly the same problems with DOS 4. All of them, including, I believe, Windows, have been fixed. So the bottom line is that I doubt you would have significantly more problems with any one of these solutions than any other. I have been running Disk Manager myself for quite a while now with DOS 3.2, first with a 40M MFM disk and now with an 80M SCSI, and I have never had any significant problems. Even the minor annoyances have been fixed by now. On the other hand, DOS 4 is bound to become much more popular as time goes on, and there is some reason to think that other solutions will become less popular and eventually die out since the support is now built-in. So the recommendation to go with DOS 4 is a good one, but if that is not acceptable, either Disk Manager or Speedstor is a viable alternative. (Note that these comments only apply to breaking the 32M barrier. Disk Manager and others also have products that allow breaking the 1024 cylinder boundary that are much newer and can cause quite serious problems with low-level disk utilities.) ---- Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@thor.UUCP Path: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones He piqued my curiosity. -- Calvin