🚀 go-pugleaf

OK, everybody agrees that using extra memory above 640k as disk cache
will return more bang for buck than moving command.com up there. But
why not do *both* ? A couple of points: (1) When it comes to allocating
ram to disk caching, *MORE* is not necessarily better.  I've read this
in various discussions about disk caching, and I beliee it. In my own
case, I get better numbers out of the Norton speed ratings with 128k
in a disk cache than I do with 256 or 512k (all in EXPANDED mem, BTW).
(2) I forget what I was going to say....
Anyway, why not try, for 384k, something like 128k in cache, and 256k
in a ram drive, into which command.com is loaded and comspec'd (about 32k).
If you're working WordPerfect  with big documents, loading the file
into a ram drive for work can greatly speed up i/o.
Even better, for WordPerfect, is having enuf expanded memory to let
WP load its overlays up there.  Doing this will make WP (& maybe
other programs as well) really zip along.
BobM, PSU Harrisburg