From: Pedro Vasconcelos <pbv_at_st-andrews.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:33:36 +0100

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:09:17 +0200
Magnus Holmgren <lear_at_algonet.se> wrote:

> Pedro Vasconcelos wrote:
>
> >>You can also note that the pcm buffer is much smaller (especially with
> >>no crossfade), and the so called watermark limit has not been reduced
> >
> >
> > Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Any clue as to why was the buffer made smaller?
>
> To leave more room for the file buffering mainly. But the purpose of
> that was to increase battery time, not reduce it...

Sorry, but what is the "file buffering" used for? To keep next tracks
pre-loaded and avoid hd spinup? But that it is only worth it if you load
a playlist and stick to it, not everyone will do that. I find that I
will listen to a few tracks, stop and switch to something diferent.

The extra power drain of increasing the average cpu frequency will
affect *everyone* regardless of their listening patterns...

Pedro

_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2005-07-29