Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!sbcs!sbstaff2!altman
From: altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Norton cache and Windows
Message-ID: <1991Mar7.165924.24851@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 91 16:59:24 GMT
References: <7450004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> <1991Mar5.235745.1928@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <44380214@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 29

In article <44380214@bfmny0.BFM.COM> tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <1991Mar5.235745.1928@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes:
>>Just to qualify where I got the info to begin with is PC Week's review
>>of caches and Windows.  They give hyperdisk a poor rating because of 
>>hardware incompatibility which they state is caused by Hyperdisk's not
>                                                                    ^^^
>>using BIOS calls.  
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>To quote p84 of the 2/18/91 PC Week: Discussion about why Power Cache 
>>was given highest rating even though Hyperdsk is faster.  "The two products 
>>differed not in their performance, but in the compatibility advantage that 
>>Power Cache Plus offers through its use of DOS-file I/O in lieu of the
>>device specific BIOS-level commands used by HyperDsk."
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I dunno, Jeff.  Sure sounds to me like PC Week said they used BIOS.

Okay, so I screwed up!  It happens.  The point I was trying to make was that
Hyperdsk does have some compatibility problems.  There is a difference between
BIOS-level commands which may be located on the device controller card and
BIOS commands located in the BIOS of the machine when you buy it.  This was 
what I was trying to say.  Keep in mind that I didn't have the article in 
front of me when I originally wrote this.  I do try to be accurate when I
post. 


--
- Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)