Jack,
>> A cache might already "know" that the directories are more
>> useful because they are accessed more often ...
Sorry about the misunderstanding - I did not mean that the
cache would know what a FAT or directory is, just that those
sectors are accessed frequently, giving the cache a chanc
Eric,
>> Having to "discard" DOS directories, to make room for new
>> data files, is the main loss of speed when using UIDE ...
>
> A cache might already "know" that the directories are more
> useful because they are accessed more often ...
I did not want to add such logic in UIDE, because I dar
Hi Bernd,
> Jack's driver only accepts certain values. This might be intentional due
> to specific caching algorythms.
> Using XMSSIZE I'd still have to use a lot of errorlevel stuff:
> if not errorlevel 5 , then use /B /N1 /N3
> if not errorlevel 10, then use /S5
> if not errorlevel .. etc.
> i
Jack,
> Except for minimal "boot" systems, like yours and Lucho's
> multiboot diskette, I recommend a minimum of 250-MB cache
> to handle todays' LARGE "Windows" files. Copying a 100-
> MB file will take 200-MB of UIDE's cache space (input and
> output), and some cache space must remain for dir
Bernd,
Re: UIDE accepting only certain cache sizes, this is true
only for caches below 80-MB. UIDE allows 5, 15, 25, 40,
or 50-MB caches, also ANY cache from 80-MB up to 4093-MB!
Disregarding its /F switch, the regular UIDE can thus set
64K-byte cache blocks with an 80-MB+ cache, which reduces
Op 24-7-2011 20:26, Rugxulo schreef:
> Why? I mean, sure /S5 is fine, I'm not complaining, but you *could*
> use Eric's XMSSIZE:
>
> http://ericauer.cosmodata.virtuaserver.com.br/soft/specials/xms-size-info-xmssizer.zip
>
> EDIT: Oh wait, that wouldn't work in CONFIG.SYS. But wait, you're
> using D
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Bernd Blaauw wrote:
> Op 24-7-2011 16:52, Jack schreef:
>
>> Apologies for my "late" response re: UIDE v.s. VirtualBox. Had to have
>> my (infected!) gall-bladder removed, 25-Jun-2011. NASTY episode, and I
>> am still recovering and "moving a bit slow" on
Op 24-7-2011 16:52, Jack schreef:
> Apologies for my "late" response re: UIDE v.s. VirtualBox. Had to have
> my (infected!) gall-bladder removed, 25-Jun-2011. NASTY episode, and I
> am still recovering and "moving a bit slow" on driver work! Re: recent
> EDR-DOS forum posts, I say the same a
Apologies for my "late" response re: UIDE v.s. VirtualBox. Had to have
my (infected!) gall-bladder removed, 25-Jun-2011. NASTY episode, and I
am still recovering and "moving a bit slow" on driver work! Re: recent
EDR-DOS forum posts, I say the same as our author Mark Twain once did --
"The r
