Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Your Name Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.ipad,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Kids react to old computers Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:40:21 +1200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 20 Message-ID: <090720141340212878%YourName@YourISP.com> References: <1lmdffk.yb292zewl08dN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> <290520140858229166%YourName@YourISP.com> <2014070714042810404-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: kqJRWSxpa3veIUsapvksxw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Thoth/1.5.4 (Carbon/OS X) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.mobile.ipad:37934 comp.sys.mac.system:62099 In article <53bc996f$0$50625$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei 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.