Stacker vs. SpeedStor

Skip to first unread message

David Heck

Apr 3, 1992, 8:12:05 AM4/3/92
Does anyone have any recommendations concerning Stacker 2.0 vs. SpeedStor?
I am looking at purchasing one of them to help out on Disk Space, and am
concerned about compatibility problems with Windows 3.1, (do any 3.1 beta
users have any comments?), specifically the ability to defrag a stacked
volume......................according to info I've seen Speedstor has a
utility to defrag its own volume...does Stacker have such a capacity? And
how would PCTools or Norton's react to a Stacked volume? Does a Stacked
volume become fragmented, or does the compression algorithm take defragmen-
tation into consideration? Haven't had a chance to get around to the
Hyperdisk cache yet...busy week...I'll get it on this weekend. One more
question...any help desk packages for Windows out there? Otherwise, I
might get to develop one. Sorry for the 20 questions...


David Heck
Information Services
University of Akron
Akron, OH 44325-3501

Sebastien Stormacq

Apr 4, 1992, 5:24:00 AM4/4/92

I'm a windows 3.1 beta-tester and a happy user of stacker.
Until now, I haven't have any problems with using stacker and windows 3.1
Stacker provides a defrag utility wich seems to work perfectly well.
There isn't compatibility problems with both norton and PCTools, for them
the stack disk is only one file wich is defrag during the installation
NOTE : The swap file of the 386 enh mode CAN NOT be on the stack disk. But
stacker can deal perfectly well with this.

Sebastien Stormacq

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages