Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!netcomsv!zap
From: zap@netcom.COM (Paul Eastham)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: Re: Recommendations for cache under Desqview?
Summary: Yep, SMARTDRV -seems- faster...
Message-ID: <1991May16.042757.18861@netcom.COM>
Date: 16 May 91 04:27:57 GMT
References: <1991May16.022630.20602@cbnewsh.att.com>
Sender: netnews@netcom.COM (USENET Administration)
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 26

In article <1991May16.022630.20602@cbnewsh.att.com> wolf@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.wolf) writes:
>Ok, I've tried: SMARTDRV, PowerPak, and Hyperdisk on my 386 compatible.
>Although SMARTDRV is supposed to be the dummest of the bunch, under
>Desqview, it is significantly faster than the other two (my "benchmark"
...
>Has anyone noticed similar behaviour with these programs?  Has anyone
>found an optimal set of options to be used with either Hyperdisk
>or PowerPak?  (Since I already bought the latter, I'd be especially
...

I had similar results with SMARTDRV and Hyperdisk, not only in Desq, but
in Windows3 and everywhere else, strangely enough, despite Hyperdisk's claim
of being many times faster than SMARTDRV.  A friend of mine had PowerPak and
claimed it to be all but useless, especially (but not just) with Desqview.
Regardless to say, he never uses it.  If he has any good setups for PowerPak, 
I'l post them.



-- 
--------
| ---- |  ZAP!!
|   /  |  A.K.A. Paul Eastham 
| /_   |  zap@netcom.com 
|  /   |  Los Altos, CA
--------  "Ack!" -- Bill the Cat