Date: 2005-11-23 00:06:57
Sorry for the previous post. It went out on its own before I managed to write the reply... :-( On 2005-11-22, at 20:29, Anders Carlsson wrote: > silverdr wrote: > >> Now I believe I'll be able to meet the target but even if I remain at >> 21-22 seconds it will still be acceptable for me... as long as noone >> writes a faster one, that is ;-) > > I can understand the desire to be the best or fastest, but for > practical > use, does it matter if it takes 20, 25 or 30 seconds to convert a > floppy > to a disk image? I mean, we've been in this hobby for more than 20 > years > already, so another five or ten seconds here or there isn't crucial. When one has to image 1000 diskettes, you know - it's already about two hours of savings... no, seriously I agree and that's why I put a smiley on the end of that sentence. > Also, > I think the task to swap floppies might be a bigger bottleneck than > the > execution time. Five to ten seconds save on every single diskette out of thousand is an absolute, measurable saving, you know... :-) -- Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive. Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.