🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FbhJ4EA6QBl0EwQV@james-bannon.demon.co.uk>
           jab@james-bannon.demon.co.uk "James Bannon" writes:
           some fascinating things, but since he has included a --
           sig-line in the middle of his post, DISPC won't let me
           quote it!

James:

    It's off the subject of this thread, but having worked
 extensively with compressed drives since the days when 70Mb was
 quite a big disk, I take issue with you about it.  It is a 99%
 safe system provided you don't start messing about.  I don't see
 that thee is any more risk of an over-confident computer-illiterate
 deleting his compressed drives than deleting his DOS or Windows
 directories, or repartitioning his hard drive, all of which are
 also catastrophic ......

    The speed question is interesting.  On DOS 386/33s with typical
 drives of the time, and with verify off, the compressed drive was
 faster.  Presumably because there were fewer sectors to read/write,
 and this more than compensated for the processing time.  On my
 present P133+ with 1.2Gb Seagate, the compressed drive is about
 60% of the speed of the host.  I don't actually know why - but
 perhaps the increase in disk-speed is proportionally greater than
 that of the processors.  (Smartdrv disabled in both cases.)

                                       Chris K.
-- 
Chris Kennington (newshound)                        01491 574065
  You can mail me with suitable modifications to header-addresses,
   or to "chris <at> inf-eden.demon.co.uk", replacing the <at>.