Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!rlgvax!bub
From: bub@rlgvax.UUCP ( Mongo Mauler)
Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm
Subject: Re: Tape vs. disk
Message-ID: <929@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Feb-86 09:09:25 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.929
Posted: Wed Feb 19 09:09:25 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 04:23:46 EST
References: <1200@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 27

> > .... a tape is no good on it since it takes
> > eternity and then some to load anything.
> 
> Agreed.  But it may interest you to know that the majority of C64's in
> the U.K. (and there are a LOT - we have the highest saturation of home
> computers in the world, I believe) are equipped with tape rather than
> disk.  That's because prices are roughly double what they are in the U.S.,
> where I believe virtually every C64 owner has a disk!
> 
> Because of the high usage of tape, there has been a lot of development of
> turbo loaders (Novaload is the best known), and these loaders claim to be
> at least as fast as a 1541.  I heard that a 1541 can take 3 minutes to
> load an average program.  I've heard enough grumbles about the 1541 to
> know that it's slow, but THAT SLOW??
> 
> Jeff.

	Yes, the 1541 is THAT SLOW!  I have my 'computer room' set up in a
guest bedroom of a two story home.  I can start a load of a good program,
get up, go downstairs, grab a beer, go back upstairs, take care of business
in the restroom, and make it back in time to WAIT for my program to finish
loading.  I consider that pretty damned slow.

	Not that I'm griping that much, mind you.  Patience has it's own
virtues, I guess...

Bubba