🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <923679426snz129.os2.7@sunshine.tm>, Richard Ashton
<{R}@sunshine.tm> writes

>There is not one single sensible explaination you can come up with why
>1x should produce a more reliable copy than a 2x.

I said, 'I suspect'.  I didn't state it as fact.  I would have thought
that reducing the rotational speed of the disc by half would allow the
laser to record more clearly defined pits in the recording surface.

Look at:

Subject: [3-31] Is it better to record at slower speeds?

at www.fadden.com/cdrfaq/

>Aren't you meant to know a bit about electronics ?

If that's a reference to my .sig, you couldn't have read it very
carefully.  I didn't produce the FAQ, but host a mirror site on behalf
of www.repairfaq.org.  I certainly don't claim to be an expert in
electronics.

>{R} Kane has 450Mhz Celeron on a BH6, 256MB RAM, 2 Seagate Barracuda 10020rpm
>    U2W 9GB drives, 32X CDROM, Ricoh 6200S, DDS2 4mm DAT, Scanner, ISDN and
>    shortly a 2GB JAZZ.

More willy waving.  Petier was right - an overclocked PC is the modern-
day equivalent of the boy-racer in his modified XR3i with a standard
engine, a 8 inch exhaust tailpipe and go-faster stripes.  

I suppose you've got to beat off nubile young women with a shitty stick
once they find out about your overc(l)ocked Celeron?

-- 
Mike Tomlinson
See the sci.electronics.repair FAQ mirror at  
http://www.jasper.demon.co.uk/repairfaq/