CompuServe Messages

I have QBTools set to check bad blocks on reads only and to check files and drawers, but not to check the data blocks. On Ami-Back Tools, I have it set to Check Data Blocks. It was with those settings, that QBTools seems to take much longer than Ami-Back Tools on the same partition. I'll try timing it again. However, even if the figures are as you suggested, the times really are not that similar for large partitions. For instance, you said for 6-Megs that AB-Tools takes 16 seconds and QB-Tools take 21 seconds. To get an approximation, let's do the math for a 240-Meg partition. 240-Megs is equal to forty 6-Meg partitions, so to speak. Now let's plug in the numbers. 40 X 16 = 640 seconds or 10 minutes and 40 seconds for AB-Tools. 40 X 21 = 840 seconds or 14 minutes for QB-Tools. So that's 3 minutes and 20 seconds longer for QB-Tools if we extrapolate the time taken for a 6-Meg partition to a 240-Meg partition. So with those numbers, you're right. AB-Tools wouldn't be two to three times faster than QB-Tools. Is it possible that if you actually checked a 240-Meg partition, that the numbers could be substantially different? That is, maybe the 6-Meg timing figures don't correlate to what the timing would actually be with a 240-Meg partition. QB-Tools certainly seems much slower when you sit there watching the progress indicator and compare it with AB-Tools. Even if QB-Tools were only 1-1/2 times slower, it would make a difference. 10 minutes vs. 15 minutes for a check is a big difference. I'm not complaining. I actually like QB-Tools better then AB-Tools. And if it checks more than AB-Tools, then it's justified in taking longer. Maybe you could put in a Quick-Check option for QB-Tools that just does the same checks as AB-Tools. I like the security of the full checking that QB-Tools offers, but I think that in the majority of instances, AB-Tools' checking is sufficient and it is faster. If you give the user the option, they could do quick checks, a la AB-Tools, which would probably be sufficient most of the time; and if it wasn't sufficient they could then do the full check. This way your users would have the best of both worlds. Just an idea. Keep up the good work. Dom Fontana –> Sent from NY via AP <–