Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!ee!ronald
From: ronald@ee.WPI.EDU (RoN SkoletskY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Is Stacker compatible with Dos 5.0?
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.183417.11965@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 26 Jun 91 18:34:17 GMT
References: <16830.2867832a@zeus.unomaha.edu> <91177.102918U09762@uicvm.uic.edu>
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: ee.wpi.edu

In article <91177.102918U09762@uicvm.uic.edu> U09762@uicvm.uic.edu (Steve Oster) writes:
>Stacker and DOS 5.0 are very much compatible.  I ran Stacker
>under DOS 3.3 and it was good, but under 5.0 its even better -
>mostly because of the large partition support.  Under DOS 3.3,
>my 100mb disk ended up as ten drives of varying sizes when
>using Stacker.  Now I have one _big_ D: drive to put everything
>on.
>
>The speed seems about the same as under 3.3.  I highly
>recommend the combination

    I've got a 12 MHz 286 with 2 20Meg Seagate ST225 hard drives.  I was thinking 
of selling the two and spending an extra $250 - $300 for a larger 80-100 Meg drive 
but I could also get Stacker without the coprocessor board to save a bit of $$$.

   Does anyone know how Stacker's speed is when running on such a system without 
a Math Coprocessor?
   I was told (by someone not very reliable) that you either need a Very fast CPU 
or a coprocessor if you don't buy the Stacker add-in card.  Is that true?
  
   I don't want to buy the complete Stacker setup because for only an extra $70 
or so I could get the larger hard drive.  Any opinions out there???
-- 
  AmaZing    /      Ron Skoletsky  (ronald@ee.wpi.edu)      \ Thought-provoking
   ASCII     /          EE Dept                             \    Quote
  Graphic    /          Worcester Polytechnic Institute     \      Here
_____________/          Worcester, MA 01609                 \__________________