Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:18:11 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Arthur <arfa AT clara DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Mailing List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: This is not a problem but...
In-Reply-To: <00e901bda399$4ee20140$364e08c3@arthur>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980630101750.6274J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Arthur wrote:

> >Yes but the cache will kill it. Programs are loaded from the cache
> >in the case of compilers, linkers, etc. The decompression is fast
> >but takes some time. 
> 
> Granted, but I'm talking about files a few megabytes in size. The only cache
> faster than decompression is onboard cache, of which I have only 512k. There
> is also the cache Windows uses when loading, but I don't believe that that's
> a couple of megabytes in size.

The size of the disk cache in Windows 95 is dynamically changed to fit
the needs.  For example, on my machine (with 64MB of physical RAM),
the cache size is usually between 15MB and 25MB, depending on what I'm
doing at that moment.