Re: Didn't they...

> I always assumed that swapping disks was a result of memory somehow, whether
> conventional, or extended.  Am I wrong?

I think you're right... the older versions of DOS would read in as much
as it could into memory, then have you swap disks (insert destination disk)
and write... then re-insert source disk and read some more, etc.  I guess
the number of swaps required was a direct result of the amount of memory
your system had to store the source disk's data.

The newer versions read from the source disk, and temporarily write it
to your HD, then write it to the destination disk.  That way, you only
have to swap the disks once.  A definite improvement in my opinion.