Thank You for your continued support and contributions!
Non-optimal disk-writing code shouldn't effect normal playback operation, since that only occurs when saving a playlist or config file.What about occasional freezes on the 5/5.5g. Has anyone encountered these? This happened all the time on my iPod Photo.
I've been using Rockbox on a 60gb 5g for more than a year now with practically no problems. At this point, skipping is never an issue, the way I use it. (Same goes for a 30gb 5.5g I borrowed for a few months.)Battery life IS kinda a problem for me though; however, if you're cool with ~10hrs then I suppose you'll be fine.(I also bought it solely because of Rockbox.)
There's nothing "wrong" with it per se - it just doesn't work the same as any other hard disk in the DAPS that Rockbox supports.If you search on the wiki you'll find an absolete page that says why it took so long for Rockbox to support it in a reasonable amount of detail.The only downside to using the 80GB for Rockbox concerns when Rockbox itself writes to the disk - which as pointed out above, only happens when you save a playlist, or a config file. And even then, the "downside" is that it takes four times as long as it does with any other Hard disk based DAP - and you probably STILL won't notice that, since playlists and config files tend to rather small.Perhaps if you create a playlist with every song on your DAP in it it'd be noticeable - but even so - it doesn't bother me much. I don't do it enough for the performance hit to matter to me.
ahh.... that explains it... my committing to database each time I start Rockbox sometimes can take up to 10 minutes.... sigh.... hopefully someone figures out how to make it better
Quote from: mamboman on July 16, 2007, 12:11:46 AMahh.... that explains it... my committing to database each time I start Rockbox sometimes can take up to 10 minutes.... sigh.... hopefully someone figures out how to make it betterYou could always not use the database In all seriousness though - making it work more efficiently at writing is probably not a trivial thing to acheive. Amiconn or LinusN are probably in the best position to comment on that though as they're the people who looked into making the disk in the 80GB work in the first place. LinusN wanted an approache where the larger sectors were handled in both the FAT and ATA drivers, which would have been a very much more complex solution - but probably would have improved the speed - whilst amiconn's approach was just to handle them in the ATA driver - which was much faster to implement - but as a result is not as elegant or efficient perhaps.
it's quite useless without the database, perhaps when someone finds the time to perhaps generate the database on the PC then copy in the files, it'd be much faster i reckon
Wow...You're getting 10 hours or so? Nice. I have a 30 GB iPod Video, and I'm lucky if I get four or five hours out of the thing with Rockbox. I keep most of my MP3's at 128KBPS so I can fit more of them on the unit. [..]
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 20 queries.