>I do not necessarily agree that disk compression would slow down a system.
> While decompression consumes many computer clock cycles, the fact that
the
>compressed files are shorter, may more than make up for that.  Since
>computing is fast and I/O is slow, overall processing time may average out
to be
>less for compressed drive operation than it would otherwise be. Also some
>compression systems used on old DOS actually made much more efficient use
>of disk space.  Some applications should not be installed on a compressed
>drive.
>
> While I had good experience compressing my small disk DOS system, I would
>not (at this time) recommend compressing Windows 95 systems unless it is
>very important to get the disk space.  Disk storage is cheap, and
>compression and decompression introduce just one more opportunity for
>unreliability.  These modern massive software systems are too unreliable
as
>it is.
>
>If you use your computer for your business, your business data is
precious.
> In a disaster it may be more difficult to retrieve data from a drive if
>that data is compressed. If the software becomes more stable, that
>recommendation might change.  I wouldn't hold my breath.  The software
>upgrades are coming a mile a minute, Software releases are often
premature,
>and the complex construction and asynchronous behavior of modern software
>systems makes it nearly impossible to test well.
>
>Jim Chapman, Consultant
>[log in to unmask]
>

Susie wrote
,,, I was advised by Micron tech support where I got my computer from that
they don't generally recommend compressing drives because it causes a lot
of hassles, mainly slowing down your response on anything that is stored on
the compressed portion because it has to decompress before it can read.


          PCSOFT:  http://nospin.com  or  [log in to unmask]