Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!USER2@cgevs3.cem.msu.edu
From: user2@cgevs3.cem.msu.edu (Stephen Medlin)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: HYDK and WIN
Message-ID: <009497AF.ED46FAE0@cgevs3.cem.msu.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 91 19:44:00 GMT
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: user2@cgevs3.cem.msu.edu (Stephen Medlin)
Organization: MSU_Chemistry
Lines: 18

In article <1991May31.060613.22766@milton.u.washington.edu>, klliou@milton.u.washington.edu (Kan-Lee Liou) writes:
>Is there anybody using Windows 3.0 and HyperDisk?
>Is HyperDisk really better than SmartDrive?

From my colleage's and my experience, HYPERDISK is orders of magnitude better
than SmartDrive.  I also happened to be in a book store a couple of months ago
and read in one of the Windows Books (I forget which one, but one similar to 
Peter Norton's,  QUE, or so) that showed performance of PC-KWICK, HYPERDISK,
and SMARTDRIVE.  Hyperdisk was one of the best ones.  Interestingly enough,
SmartDrive's performance plateaued out around 512 K while Hyperdisk has
performance gains all the way to about 2MB before it started to plateau.  My
colleague ran some performance tests (using PC-Mag's benchmarks) outside of
Windows and compared the performances of Hyperdisk and Smartdrive. 
Unfortunately, I don't have the results at hand, but Hyperdisk ran rings around
SmartDrive.  If you (or anyone else) are interested in these rough benchmarks,
let me know and I will post them here.  

Stephen Medlin