silverdr_at_inet.com.pl
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.