SPONSORED LINKS
On Fri, 6 Jun 97 22:04:24 HST, David Ross wrote: >> >BTW, if you're not using data compression, you can save lots of bytes in >> >W95 by using it. >> >> Compression also slows down the system. This may or may not be important to you, depending on your >> applications. > >This ranges from somewhat true to totally false, depending on the >situation. During compression/decompression the CPU *is* burdened with >extra processing; however, (1) this is much worse for compression than >decompression, and for big files (like executables ) the former is only >done once, and (2) the reduction in data to be transferred to/from the >drive speeds overall processing, especially when the CPU is relatively >fast and the drive is relatively slow. I use Superstore under DOS/W3.1 on a >desktop, and find that data access on my compressed partition is somewhat >faster than on the uncompressed partition. I have a compressed virtual >disk using Win95OSR2's compression on my TP560, and it is comparable in >speed to the uncompressed drive. I used a similar arrangement on my >701, and found the compressed drive to be only marginally slower than >the uncompressed one (and I was using maximum compression on that >drive). > I guess I'm just not used to the speed of compression, because my fastest machine is only a Pentium 75mhz server running Warp Server and Linux, and my slowest PC is my 5150 IBM PC (4.77mhz), and I have grown accustomed to wait for PKZIP to take 5 minutes to compress what takes <30 secs. on my server. One question for everyone out there though: which OSes having given you the best performance w/ compression, and which gave the worst? I run a variety of OSes myself with 10+ older computers, so I would be interested to find out. Thanks. Paul Regards, Paul Khoury pkhoury@earthlink.net