Ricsi,
The slowdown, like I said, is any time I'm using a dgi file ... write,
del-mail, empty trash, make new index ... takes measurable time waiting
as opposed to almost instantaneous before [under QEMM & dial-up
1.60b1/2]
I just installed a new 4Gig HDD when I did housekeeping on the system
and put in the NIC. First partition is currently 1Gig with huge sectors,
but it's used to hold *huge* zip files, one for each of my other drives.
<G> The second gigabyte of HDD is DOS, with 2 drives, 1/2Gig each.
Even with large sectors, one of those logical drives should have room
for an UMSDOS installation. I just want to get my feet wet, get a
little more experience ... you see, I have a shell account on my ISP
whenever I want to find out how to access it. I'd better feel a bit
comfortable with Linux before I start fooling around with it on my ISP's
server, right? <G>
l.d.
P.S. I now have slightly better memory management. Installed Himem.sys
from DOS 6.22 [replacing 5.0] and using /EISA switch a kind fellow
Arachnian told me about. My fears that everything might no longer load
high, because of the huge comparative size of 6.22 version himem.sys,
were unfounded. I may even have more memory now for caching. I'll have
to try and see what happens.
====
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 09:40:53 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LB> I'm not in a position [yet] to say whether the slowdown I'm
> LB> experiencing is because I'm using Smartdrv instead of Ncache, or
> LB> because of the DOS memory mis-management as compared with QEMM.
> Neither nor ...
> Ncache is faster than smartdrv, but it's unnoticeable.
> If you use QEMM's stealth feature, than you have much more memory than with
> MSDOS EMM386, _BUT_ the computer is slowed down.
> If you don't use stealth, and configure emm386 correctly, than you get
> nearly as much memory than with QEMM. (so no mis-management)
> Could you tell me again, where you notice the slowdown ??
> LB> One thing, dgi files still seem to take forever, but there has been a
> LB> noticeable speedup in using TCP/IP [that's what Arachne writes to
> LB> bottom of screen] static IP setup as opposed to using DHCP/BOOTP
> LB> which actually polls the server to determine the data.
> So static values work for you ?? GREAT !
> LB> l.d.
> CU, Ricsi
> PS: If you have enough space for UMSDOS Linux, and know that it is only
> intended to try linux out, than good.
> PPS: I do think that windows users notice if their connection speed
> multiplies by 10 ! Why should they not notice ??
> --
> Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ICQ: 7659421] {RSA-PGP Key avail.}
> -=> I wonder how humanity managed to survive? <=-
--
-- Arachne V1.61, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
