Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Norton cache and Windows
Message-ID: <44380214@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Date: 6 Mar 91 20:00:38 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.185736.17694@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <7450004@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> <1991Mar5.235745.1928@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff)
Lines: 16

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.