In article <9303162145.AA01746 at net.bio.net> WAGNERF at BRUNB.BITNET (Wagner Fontes) writes:
>>> Everybody is talking about good experiences with
> Stacker 2.0. What's bad?
> There must be something wrong, otherwise there wouldn't
> be a version 3.0.
Of course, this logic isn't correct. Stacker 2.0 is fine.
Version 3.0 mainly adds MS-Windows GUI front end.
>> I've heard about people loosing all the data from a HD,
> but I'm not sure it was Stacker's fault.
This was a problem with version 1.0 possibly. I did have an
unexplainable corruption of the disk file table with version 1.0
which led to it allowing me to only the read the disk, but I didn't
lose any information. Version 2.0 has been just perfect so far.
>> Does it behave well with Windows 3.1 ?
If you want this, you should get Stacker 3.0.
> Wagner Fontes
For those considering Stacker perhaps you should know that
a main new feature of MS-DOS 6.0 which is supposed to be
released in a couple of months is the same type of data
compression that Stacker offers. However, it will be an integral
part of the operating system. There was apparently a
pretty impressive (I wasn't there) demonstration of DOS 6.0
at last month's Boston Computer Society IBM tech group meeting.
The guy pulled the power while the computer was doing compression
and upon restoring power, the system recovered nicely.
There apparently is some dispute between Stacker and Microsoft over
whether copyrighted code was appropriated for DOS 6.0.
Given the size of Microsoft this not likely to delay the
Given the quoted multi-megabyte size of DOS 6.0, I probably
will stay with Stacker 2.0 and DOS 5.0 till I get a
notebook computer with more capacity. My experience has
been that this is stable.
NSF Center for Biological Timing
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA USA