Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!isgate!krafla!adamd
From: adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: New TOS versions
Message-ID: <3092@krafla.rhi.hi.is>
Date: 2 May 91 16:03:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: krafla.3092
References: <672747111.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org>
Organization: University of Iceland
Lines: 22

In <672747111.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> Shervin.Shahrebani.Of.250/744@f744.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Shervin Shahrebani Of 250/744) writes:

>You don't need Pinhead if you have TOS 1.4 and above.  I have a Mega STE and
>have experienced the problem as well but Pinhead is nothing compared to the
>TOS's built in fast load.  Why bother when TOS has it already?  I know
>pinhead may be compatible with a few more packages but there is nothing to
>it.

Doesn't Pinhead simply compress executables into a self-extracting form that
takes less disk space and therefore less time to load?
Is this what TOS 1.4 fastload does, or is there any benefit in using both
methods?
The time to load an application program is perhaps not a very significant
factor if the program is just to be loaded in and much time then spent working
in the program. On the other hand major savings in disk space matter quite a
lot to most users - from single floppy machines up to Gigabyte hard disks.
The shorter load time is just a useful side effect of the data compression and
is paid for by the time taken to compress the files (also the extra CPU load
during uncompression in a multiprogramming environment). 

--
Adam David.  (adamd@rhi.hi.is)