Depending on the compression algorithms/format, original file size and Compression levels the time to compress/save and uncompress/open Can be noticed (at least on my machine ).
You asked/wondered why anyone would not use compression and I told You why. That's all. For me, I prefer the speed to saving space. For archival stuff I put on DVDs. Sounds like you prefer to keep Everything on the HDDs. To each his own and for different reasons. jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Shell Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: File size of scanned 6x7 neg On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:00 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Compressing and uncompressing is SLOWER > Than using uncompressed files. Actually, that used to be a consideration back in the old days of slow chips. With today's machines the difference is not even detectable. > With 250GB hard drives costing under $100 > Why bother with slow compression?? (That's what I say, I > Now have about 560GB of HDD on my PC, the 1 Terabyte > Threshold will be reached soon no doubt). I'm a professional photographer. I have over 1800 GB of HD storage right now, and I'm going to need to add more soon. Regardless of whether drive space is relatively cheap or not, I want to make optimum use of it. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
