Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_abg
From: ins_abg@jhunix.UUCP (Brandon Goldfedder)
Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm
Subject: Re: Tape vs. disk
Message-ID: <1981@jhunix.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Feb-86 18:13:45 EST
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1981
Posted: Sun Feb 23 18:13:45 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 08:17:13 EST
References: <1200@decwrl.DEC.COM> <929@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr.
Lines: 33

> > > .... 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

      The 1541's speed though can be drastically improved if you use a fast
 loader such as EPYX'S or MACH-5.  For an investment of under $30 you
 can as much as get 5 times the speed available.
  
Brandon Goldfedder @JHU