Make your own free website on Tripod.com
next up previous contents
Next: Short Term Goals Up: Final CS 297 Report Previous: Conclusion/Summary

Further Directions

In over a dozen pages, I have described the background information I have learned during the last several months. So what's next?

Gaps in knowledge might be closed by doing further background research. One possibility is to read books such as the Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Resource Kit published by Microsoft Press.

Is disk simulation feasible? It no longer seems feasible. If not disk simulation, then what other possible routes are available? One possibility is experimentation. For example, as I mentioned in section 5.4.2 on page [*] and in section 5.4.3 on page [*], both Executive Software International and Raxco Software make performance claims for the disk defragmentation products. Assuming we have the necessary software, we could try to validate their claims and performance results.

One possibility for research was the primary reason for examining disk defragmentation. In Norton Utilities 3.0 for Windows 95, Symantec used a different defragmentation technique than was used in prior versions. Does the new technique perform better? In addition, Microsoft added an application load acceleration feature to Disk Defragmenter for Windows 98. Does Disk Defragmenter for Windows 98 produce better performance than Disk Defragmenter for Windows 95? Symantec added the application load acceleration feature to Norton Utilities 3.0 as a patch so that it could be used with Windows 98. What effect does that have when Speed Disk is used with a computer running Windows 95 compared to when Speed Disk is used with a computer running Windows 98?



 
next up previous contents
Next: Short Term Goals Up: Final CS 297 Report Previous: Conclusion/Summary
Barnett Hsu
1998-10-31