Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!sbcs!sbstaff2!altman
From: altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Norton cache and Windows
Message-ID: <1991Mar5.235745.1928@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 5 Mar 91 23:57:45 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.185736.17694@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <7450004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 37

In article <7450004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> yoshida@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Stuart Yoshida) writes:
>altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes:
>> [...]
>> 	I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the 
>> perfect cache.  So far as I have stated earlier I feel the best package
>> is Hyperdisk.  PC Week agrees, with one reservation.  Hyperdisk is not
>> compatible with all drives.  This is because it does not use BIOS calls
>> but instead goes directly to the hardware.
>> --
>> - Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)
>> ----------
>
>  I just talked with the author of HyperDisk, and he said, "Hyperdisk
>  uses BIOS calls ONLY.  It's funny how rumors get started, isn't it?"
>
>  So whatever problems HyperDisk has, it's *NOT* because it goes
>  directly to the hardware.  It does not circumvent the software
>  interface protocols; it definitely uses BIOS calls.
>
>--
>
>  Stuart

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."

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