__/ [ alt ] on Saturday 15 July 2006 05:27 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:2246276.2a80ESuuJR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> __/ [ alt ] on Friday 14 July 2006 22:48 \__
>>
>>> John Bailo <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:fYOdnURnAI7AlyXZnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> ,----[ Opening Remark ]
>>>>> | Microsoft is supposedly creating an iPod killer. Just like Sony.
>>>>> | Just like Sandisk.
>>>>
>>>> I have a Sandisk m-200 and I think it's great.
>>>>
>>>> Sandisk is the number two seller of mp3 players just behind Apple
>>>> and in the past few years it's stock has been performing quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a Sandisk Sansa e130. I'm quite pleased with it. The only
>>> thing I don't like about it is its boot time when I have a 2GB SD
>>> card plugged into it.
>>>
>> Please excuse my ignorance, but why would you need to reboot? And why
>> would the process of bootsrapping need to scan the content of the
>> entire card /a priori/ and be slowed by the capacity? There is no such
>> issue with Palm OS devices (cards whose size exceeds 1.7 GB can cause
>> trouble however). And unless you have a LifeDrive or plenty of
>> hackware, it take just a couple of seconds to boot (maybe once a
>> month, with reliable S/W).
>
> Well, it's not really boot time, it's startup time from its "off" state to
> "on" state.
>
> The e130 scans the external card for music changes. This takes less time
> when the music hasn't changed because then it doesn't generate a new
> playlist.
>
> Without the external card, startup time is quite quick. I guess the e130
> has some sort of flag so it knows when it has been plugged into USB and
> that the internal memory may have changed.
>
> I suppose it'd be faster if I didn't have the music in directories.
Back when I had a CD-sized MP3 player (plays standard CD's, or CD-ROM's with
MP3's... going back to 2001-2003 before it was stolen), scanning of the
files (allocation table) was rather quick. This probably took about 2
seconds (initial lag) for 700MB and 200 files. I had one particular CD that
contained a hard-drive backup and this led to the scanning being
tremendously slow (a couple of minutes, IIRC). A flat structure should be
quicker to access, but it depends on the filesystem and the implementation
(which is embedded) and CSS (Goodman's).
Best wishes,
Roy
|
|
