home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.cd-rom
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!smsc.sony.com!dce
- From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
- Subject: Re: Which drive is better?
- Message-ID: <C1Fpr5.J6p@smsc.sony.com>
- Sender: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
- Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA
- References: <CDROM-L%93012503515449@UCCVMA.UCOP.EDU>
- Distribution: alt
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:09:02 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
-
- In article <CDROM-L%93012503515449@UCCVMA.UCOP.EDU>, TURGUT@FRORS12.BITNET (Turgut Kalfaoglu) writes:
- |> I think the importance of 150K-300K transfer speed is overrated - I just
- |> got a 150K drive, and I am using multimedia software with it, like the
- |> ones I reviewed to this list earlier today. I have no jerkiness, and
- |> no problems with the drive. Btw, the drive is a Philips CM205. An
- |> internal drive with 350 ms. access time, 150K transfer rate,
- |> and a propriatory interface with a half-height card. -turgut
-
- This is as it should be. Multimedia standards are written with at
- least some level of reality in mind, so they aren't going to specify a
- faster CD-ROM transfer rate than people are generally going to have.
-
- So, I would agree that 300K/sec should not be needed, though there is
- some software that needs work (try using Video For Windows with your
- drive and see how it works).
-
- On the other hand, if I had the choice between a 150K drive and a 300K
- drive and a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I'd ask to take a look
- at the stick. When I had a CDU-541 on my work machine, I really
- appreciated my NEC CDR-74 at home, and when I switched to a CDU-561 at
- work, it made a real difference.
-
- So, while the importance of 300K/sec may be overrated, the usefulness
- and desirability is not. You can have your slow drive.
-
- --
- ...David Elliott
- ...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
- ...(408)944-4073
- ..."Do you sing like Olive Oyl on purpose?"
-