>   I've tried temporary and permanent swap files, and various sizes of
 > cache. It seems to me that the fastest results are a 2Mb cache under
 > Windows (plus 4Mb of "real" RAM, and a permanent swap file. Running
 > the compiler, it's *much* faster if I get it all into cache. I reduced
 > the sice of my RAM drive to get another meg into cache.

If it works for you then go with it. I used to run a 2 meg ram and it was
far better than 750k/

 >   The occasional swap file "dreaming" doesn't worry me. It only does
 > it when I'm not doing anything anyway.

I like to know what's going on.

 >  NP> On all machines I have setup, the _only_ time there is disc
 >  NP> activity, is when a file is actually read or written, which is
 >  NP> how it _should_ be.

 >   The fastest overall result is how is *should* be. I'm tempted to buy
 > another 16Mb of RAM.

It improves things out of sight. That's why I just did.

Regards
Niels Petersen

--- FMail/386 0.98