Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!rodan.acs.syr.edu!ggreenbe
From: ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Gerald Greenberg)
Subject: Re: ---Catch-All for Windows Problems---
Message-ID: <1991May24.154429.2302@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
References: <3463@travis.csd.harris.com> <colfelt.674956491@tramp.Colorado.EDU> <4389@inews.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 15:44:29 GMT

In article <4389@inews.intel.com> sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com (Stephen Strazdus) writes:
>In article <colfelt.674956491@tramp.Colorado.EDU> colfelt@tramp.Colorado.EDU writes:
>>dana@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Dan Aksel) writes:
   [someone says]
>>>Its not a real cache anyway." He then went on to say I should use a cache
>>>similar to PC-Tools or the one that Qualitas offers.  (Qualitas distributes
>>>386MAX).
>>
>>How about the Norton-Cache that comes with Norton 5.0?  I trust Norton more 
>>that Central Point when it comes to nitty-gritty stuff.  If in fact the 
>>utility of SmartDrv is questionable, and if indeed the "cooperation" is
>>a joke, then I'm all ready to switch!  Bring on the Cache Brigade!
>After reading Appendix D in the Windows User's Guide, I was under the
>impression that the only time windows did any cache modulation with
>Smart Drive was when you are running in Real Mode and have Smart Drive
>installed in Expanded (does anyone still use this stuff?) Memory.
>
>p588 says, "With an extended memory cache, when Windows starts in
>standard mode or 386 enhanced mode, it immediately reduces SMARTDrive's
>cache to the minimum size."
>
>The rest of the text gives no indication that Windows ever gives memory
>back to Smart Drive until you exit windows.  If this is the case, then
>there isn't much advantage to using Smart Drive except that you have a
>bigger disk cache when you're not running windows.  If you use windows
>almost exclusively, it seems you could use a different, and probably
>more reliable disk cache.  Just set the cache size to whatever you
>currently have defined as your minimum cache size.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Steve Strazdus  |  sstrazdu@hopi.intel.com  |  Insert your favorite .sig here.
I thought I'd get in on this discussion, too.  I could have
chosen any of the messages to reply to, but this is the one I
happen to be reading when I decided to relate my story.  I,
too, had problems with Smartdrive.  I liked the idea of being
able to have a bigger cache outside of Windows, but
unfortunately Smartdrive just kept trashing my drive.  I've
just finished trying Hyperdisk421 (or is it Hyperdrive?),
which is supposed to have the same capabilities as
Smartdrive...unfortunately, it trashes my drive, too!  Maybe I
just cannot use one of these caches that will shrink under
windows...I know I'm not going to spend $$$ for PCKwik's cache
unless I know it won't trash my drive.

I just recently got a copy of PC-Tools v.6.  I 
didn't really get it for the cache, since I figured Smartdrive
would work...also, I wanted the flexible cache.  Since it
started to look like a flexible cache wouldn't work, however,
I thought I'd give the pc-tools cache a try.  I came up with a
different problem, which maybe someone out there can answer:
When pc-tools cache starts to run, I get an error message
which states something like "boot sector drive contradicts
BIOS" and then it asks me to continue.  So far I've been too
chicken to continue (tired of rebuilding my drive).  Does
anybody know what all this means?  Perhaps what I have to do
is use the PC-Tools formatter to reformat my drive?

Maybe some day I'll have a cache that works!  It would be
nice!
--Gerry
ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu

