Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!null
From: null@bsu-cs.UUCP (Patrick Bennett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: cache software
Message-ID: <5851@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 89 21:17:07 GMT
References: <1081@unm-la.UUCP> <6374@saturn.ucsc.edu> <5748@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2178@hoqax.UUCP>
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 14

In article <2178@hoqax.UUCP>, lmg@hoqax.UUCP (LARRY GEARY) writes:
> I purchased Flash 5.0 a year or so ago (based on results of an earlier
> PC Mag comparison) and was quite underwhelmed. Using Flash's own "demo" program
> as a crude benchmark, I found Flash to be 2-4 times slower than Microsoft's
> Smartdrive and Compaq's CACHE.
  ... 
> Am I missing something? Is Flash 6.0 (or whatever) that much better than
> what I bought?

If you were comparing Flash 5.0 to cache software of today then, yes, I
could definitely see it being slower...  6.0 is MUCH faster than 5.0 and
offers quite a few more features.  Flash is certainly as fast as PC Kwik
that much is certain.  You can upgrade for a pretty small fee I believe...
$25 sounds right, but I'm not positive.