home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!adx.adelphi.edu!panther.adelphi.edu!shopsis
- From: shopsis@panther.adelphi.edu (Charles Shopsis)
- Subject: Re: stacker 2.0 vs 3.0
- Message-ID: <shopsis.43@panther.adelphi.edu>
- Sender: news@adx.adelphi.edu (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: 192.100.55.194
- Organization: Adelphi University - Node: Boole
- References: <1992Dec10.172304.11714@sarah.albany.edu> <oneil.724031791@cwis>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:00:42 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <oneil.724031791@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
-
- >cs5059@albnyvms.bitnet writes:
-
- >>I am currently a happy stacker 2.0 user.
- >>I was wondering what I get by upgrading to 3.0.
- >>What is the difference/features/speed/etc.?????
- >>Thanks !
-
- >Being able to stack floppies and use them on other pc's -- even if they
- >don't have stacker. I believe you can also stack bernoulli and tape as
- >well.
-
- >Very nice gauge in Windows showing level of fragmentation, etc.
-
- >Sharon
- >oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
-
- Also, a small improvement is stacking efficiency. A 65 Mb drive that I had
- stacked with 2.0 gave me about 5 Mb more with stacker 3, but, stacker 3
- takes up 2 more Mb of HD space than stacker 2.0. They claim that optimize
- works twice as fast, but half of forever is still a pretty long time.
- Stacker 3.0 also gives you some control of compression vs. speed, but
- there is no quantification of this trade off, thus its usefulness is
- difficult to evaluate. The manual for 3 is quite a bit better;
- in particular; they now tell you what to do when stacker encounters a bad
- file and write protects your hard drive (a very disconcerting expereince).
-
- Charles Shopsis
- shopsis@panther.adelphi.edu
-
-
- THe windows gauges are not (IMHO) worth the upgrade.
-