Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdcc6!crl!hartung From: hartung@crl.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Nortons 5.0 Message-ID: <19480@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Date: 17 May 91 16:41:18 GMT References: <8032@umd5.umd.edu> <1991May13.142418.24823@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 28 tim@zwaaney.uucp (Timothy De Zwaan) writes: >>I've kept a lot of things from the old version. IMHO, version 5 was a >>downgrade. In article <1991May13.142418.24823@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> hartnegg@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Klaus Hartnegg) writes: >This is what I thought too when seeing it the first time. >But then I noticed that all programs can accept lots of >command line options. With them it's easy to regain the >same functionality as with the old version. Even a bit more. Speaking of NU 5.0, I seem to recall that a certain utility in the package was supposedly associated with occasionally trashing the FAT on one's hard drive. Do I recall correctly, or am I mistaken? Specifically, I had installed NU 5.0 on a brand new 16 MHz 386-SX w/ a 40 Mb HD, MSDOS 4.01, and AMI BIOS. After I installed the disk cache that came with NU, I developed weird problems on the hard drive. When I checked it out with NDD, it had FAT problems and lost clusters. Once fixed, everything was fine (i.e., no lost data! :-), but I was suspicious enough to remove the cache program from the AUTOEXEC.BAT file. Was it just coincidence, or do I have reason to suspect NU's cache? -- --Jeff Hartung-- Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!... InterNet - hartung@crl.ucsd.edu or ps299bx@igrad1.ucsd.edu UUCP - ucsd!crl.ucsd.edu!hartung BITNET - hartung@ucsd