Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #62099

Re: Kids react to old computers

From	Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups	misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.ipad, comp.sys.mac.system
Subject	Re: Kids react to old computers
Date	2014-07-09 13:40 +1200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<090720141340212878%YourName@YourISP.com> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <2014070714042810404-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <slrnlrme4l.139.g.kreme@amelia.local> <lpg1ce$vf6$1@dont-email.me> <slrnlrp5n0.kr1.g.kreme@amelia.local> <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Soemone wrote:
> >>
> >> Commodore's cassette drive ran at a horrific 50 baud, and the disk drive
> >> was 300. As a comparison, the TRS-80 cassette drive was 1500 baud, IIRC.
> 
> But this doesn't take into account how many times you had to try to load
> your program, and the time it took for casette to run before it got to
> the recorded program. (what we could sonider the "seek time" measured in
> many seconds).
> 
> Both  50 and 1500 baud recordings would likely have a seek time that was
> way longer than the actual recording. And if the 50 baud one was more
> reliable, then perhaps it would be faster on average.

The Commodore cassette drive was actually 50 *bytes* per second (around
300 baud) and the floppy drive was 300-400 bytes per second. There were
"fast loaders" and "turbo loaders" which loaded faster though, and some
third-party drives were faster.

Thread

Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 09:06 -0400
  Re: Kids react to old computers Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-07 14:04 -0700
    Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-08 00:17 +0000
      Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-08 14:36 -0600
        Re: Kids react to old computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-09 01:12 +0000
          Re: Kids react to old computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-08 21:22 -0400
            Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-09 13:40 +1200
              Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-09 15:13 -0600
                Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-10 09:34 +1200
            Re: Kids react to old computers Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2014-07-09 08:03 -0600
              Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-10 09:18 +1200
        Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-09 13:42 +1200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:43 -0400
  Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-08 09:17 +1200
    Re: Kids react to old computers Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-07-07 22:44 -0400
      Re: Kids react to old computers "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 13:59 +1000
      Re: Kids react to old computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-08 16:10 +1200

csiph-web