Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!cs352a41 From: cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu (Adam Goldberg) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Command.com in ramdisk Message-ID: Date: 24 Apr 91 23:19:28 GMT References: <34067@ccicpg.UUCP> <1991Apr24.194745.13507@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA Lines: 27 c60b-1eq@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes: >In article <34067@ccicpg.UUCP> mhr@ccicpg.UUCP (MHR {who?}) writes: >>Now if Adam's 384k had been the first 384k on the far side of the first >>megabyte, your advice would have been more appropriate, but I think you >>may have misunderstood what he was saying (or I did, in which case >>ignore this post). >>Besides, I side with the previous responder to Adam's post who suggested >>that he use it for a disk cache. I find that use to be eminently >>suitable for my extra k. >Agreed. A disk cache is a good choice if you want a general >improvement in disk speed, since there are areas of the disk that >are accessed frequently (such as the FAT and directory area). Thanks to all who've sent me mail suggesting that I use a disk cache. I'm trying one out now, and it's kinda fun. I don't see the 900% improvement that some claim, but a little bit of improvement is ok, too...384k just sitting there at 10000h is a bit of a waste, so I'm better off now. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! Adam Goldberg ! * ! "It's simple! Even a PASCAL ! ! cs352a41@cs.iastate.edu ! * ! programmer could do it!" ! +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+