home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!nevada.edu!cat.lv-lib.nevada.edu!downs
- From: downs@helios.nevada.edu (Lamont Downs)
- Subject: Re: Stacker 3.0 Questions
- Message-ID: <downs.35.724563188@helios.nevada.edu>
- Lines: 23
- Sender: news@nevada.edu (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cat.lv-lib.nevada.edu
- Organization: UNLV
- References: <Bz6tCw.Cv@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <rnk2ps@rpi.edu> <1992Dec15.124228.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:33:08 GMT
-
-
- >If you were asking about improvements to 2.0 then look previous postings
- >where was a notify about these. Someone said that speed was better but
- >compress ratio has not changed (at least substantionally).
-
- If you're willing to sacrifice a _small_ bit of speed for greater
- compression, you can supposedly get up to 10% more space. In my own
- experience, when I went to 3.0 and restacked I gained about 8 extra megs on
- one 135MB stacker drive, and 4 on another of roughly equal size (the lower
- figure was because the second drive has a lot of GIFs among other things). I
- have a 486/33 and have not noticed any speed penalty, though if you have a
- slower processer your experience might be a bit different.
-
- I do find the utilities a lot easier to use, since everything can now be
- done from Windows (which I use a lot). Stacker does require you to disable
- Fastopen before "optimizing" (defragmenting) a stacker drive, a minor
- nuisance which you'd think they could have built a way around. I have not
- found any software incompatibilities, either with Windows or DOS programs. I
- also like being able to use stacked and unstacked floppies interchangeably
- without a lot of rigamarole about "mounting" and "demounting" drives.
-
- Lamont Downs
- downs@helios.nevada.edu
-