AT>> message(s) for each area together.  When Squish reads this large
AT>> packet, it doesn't have to jump around from area to area, which
AT>> speeds up processing considerably.   
DC> That'll kill a lot of Squish systems, as Squish cannot handle large 
DC> packets (Squish/386 can happily handle them). 
You can set the maximum packet size...
AT>> In my case, without PacketSort, I get about 8msgs/sec.  With
AT>> PacketSort, I am now getting between 25 and 45 msgs/sec (sometimes
AT>> even more).  Ofcourse, the 4meg disk cache helps a lot too.
DC> Question. Does PacketSort actually speed up the entire processing time 
DC> (including it's own runtime) or does it slow down, or remain the same?
Speed it up.  BIG time.
DC> I'd have my doubts as to wether or not it made any real differences 
DC> speed-wise, but it does appear to have several other usefull features 
DC> (like splitting large packets and sorting messages by date)
It does speed things up.  Think about it.  If Squish only has to open a 
single area ONCE, rather than 50 or more times, will it not be faster?  After 
all, each open requires a DOS "FAT search"/directory search, etc.
--- PointEd 2.0
---------------