Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!asuvax!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!rfm From: RFM@psuvm.psu.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Command.com in ramdisk Message-ID: <91115.231110RFM@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 26 Apr 91 03:11:10 GMT References: <9o8X13w164w@graphics.rent.com> <1991Apr25.161248.18791@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> Organization: Penn State University Lines: 16 OK, everybody agrees that using extra memory above 640k as disk cache will return more bang for buck than moving command.com up there. But why not do *both* ? A couple of points: (1) When it comes to allocating ram to disk caching, *MORE* is not necessarily better. I've read this in various discussions about disk caching, and I beliee it. In my own case, I get better numbers out of the Norton speed ratings with 128k in a disk cache than I do with 256 or 512k (all in EXPANDED mem, BTW). (2) I forget what I was going to say.... Anyway, why not try, for 384k, something like 128k in cache, and 256k in a ram drive, into which command.com is loaded and comspec'd (about 32k). If you're working WordPerfect with big documents, loading the file into a ram drive for work can greatly speed up i/o. Even better, for WordPerfect, is having enuf expanded memory to let WP load its overlays up there. Doing this will make WP (& maybe other programs as well) really zip along. BobM, PSU Harrisburg