ZN wrote:
On 6/21/2003 at 11:35 PM Lau wrote:
Back to my earlier mention of caching... hard drives and their
controllers do caching as well. I'm not certain if they do read-ahead
caching.
In short, yes.
Ta. I'll add a little proviso. The hardware can't know what the next
logical
Hi all,
I am looking for Dieter's email address to send him something that I
promised him while at the US QL Show 2003. I don't believe that he's
reading the list but I would appreciate a personal email from someone that
has his address...
Thanks,
Phoebus
--
Phoebus Dokos - Undergrad in MIS
Hi all,
Now that I am back home I realise that I did not bring the two email
addresses that I requested (Herb Schaaf's and Mel LaVerne's) back from
Greece (duh!). If anyone would be so kind to resend them again? :-)
Also, anyone knows the details of an A3000 (Archie) keyboard membrane
before I
P Witte wrote:
...
That was the significance of
2^n size no. s remarks
--- - - --- ---
x: xxx xxx xx Primer run
;)
A first time run to ensure that any caching that would be done by the first
run was done before the first run so that
P Witte wrote:
Your explanation made reminded me that a considerable amount of buffering
is already going on (the hard disk, Windoze, and Smsq). iof.load is possibly
not much more efficient under those circumstances than iob.fmul.
Yes, it's not that much of a difference anymore. In the past
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 at 00:43:09, Lau wrote:
(ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
My suggestion of one byte buffers was a little facetious (one of the
two words was the five vowels in order - there's one with them
reversed).
'was' - 'with'
Ah that is worth remembering as it help spell the damn word (8-)
I
