The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
From: "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:24:01 -0700
Local: Fri, Jul 18 2008 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Request for CF Performance Comparisons
pitz wrote: I've been using the same CF card for a few years, and have never > I'm sold at using a CF card as my primary "hard disk". No moving > parts, and some (though certainly not all) CF cards have almost the > same MTBF rating as hard disks. I'm currently using a CFFA setup for > my IIgs. had any problem. The same is not true for three different hard drives. Of course, the hard drives are now all "old" drives, and deserve > What I want to find is how it compares, in terms of performance, with On an 8MHz accelerated //e, the speed of the CFFA never seems to > other CF-based setups, assuming that the CF interface is not the > bottleneck (i.e., using a very fast CF). be a bottleneck at all. I would also be interested in speed comparisons for typical file > I'm curious if using a Focus controller and an IDE-CF adapter is -michael > better than a CFFA or MicroDrive setup. Or even a complex setup such > as a RAMFAST (or HS-SCSI) + SCSI-IDE adapter + IDE-CF adapter. There > are some SCSI-CF adapters out there, but not very common. > Can anyone who has more than one of the above setups provide some AppleCrate: An Apple II "blade server"! "The wastebasket is our most important design You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||