On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Zbigniew <zbigniew2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, it was a bit surprising to me, that I still need a software
> cache, while using hardware, which - like for DOS requirements - is
> really very fast. Unfortunately, using no caching at all, I noticed
> pauses (3-4 seconds), that occur although not to often, but frequently
> enough to be irritating (the controller's LED is on at that time).
> Well, perhaps the NVIDIA SATA isn't the best fit for DOS.

DOS doesn't use SATA anyways (AFAIK), only IDE compatibility mode. It
would be even slower without UDMA or a software cache. As to why you
need it, it's because (quoting Martin Reiser) "Software gets slower
faster than hardware gets faster". Also known as "What Intel giveth,
Microsoft taketh away."

But actually even DOS software gets slower and bloatier over time. I
hate to bring up DJGPP, one of my favorite things, but take a look at
CC1.EXE (C compiler proper) over the years, quite a difference!!! And
don't forget the differences in x86 families (and software
optimizations) and L1/L2/L3 cache sizes (among a billion other
things). It all heavily varies (and GCC has both pros and cons).

You'll always have speed issues if you don't watch what you're doing.
Floppy, USB, CD-ROM, hard drive are all much slower than RAM (use

This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to