The best machine to try DSK-PRO is the Sony XV or similar. This is a good computer.
It may not work properly in all european machines.
It was tested in a 8280 MSX computer and the normal mode worked well. It was able to create DSK files, the vice-versa as well and disk to disk. No problems at all. It had problems in the protected mode.
But a good reading in the manual might help a lot.
- DSK-PRO 10 (2016): 1:42
- Fastcopy 3.0 (1991): 1:05
But, but, but, there is no copier in the world faster than DSK-PRO. Surely you must have made some mistakes with your tests. Or, you've mixed up the two time results. Yeah, that's probably it.
The best machine to try DSK-PRO is the Sony XV or similar. This is a good computer.
It may not work properly in all european machines.
It was tested in a 8280 MSX computer and the normal mode worked well. It was able to create DSK files, the vice-versa as well and disk to disk. No problems at all. It had problems in the protected mode.
But a good reading in the manual might help a lot.
I did not use the DOS inside the disk image and I did use a 8280 without video hardware. That's the not reading the manual good enough
Now I didn't hear your answer on being beaten in speed quite significantly by a kid 25 years ago already
Here Fastcopy 3.0 takes 1:45 to read a full 720k disk. Maybe the european air changes the results... That is it.
And remember, DSK-PRO is not just a copier like the simple Fastcopy. It's a complete disk solution.
Track Information, Disk Zapper, Disk Formatter, Disk Copier, and Disk Image Tool.
Well, I think it's a little bit better than the simple Fastcopy...
3 - The speed in normal mode is even faster. There is no copier in the world faster than DSK-PRO.
Sorry, didn't feel like searching for the tripod
Excuses accepted...
cbsfox: did you use FastCopy tuned for the right FDC for the machine you tested it on? Otherwise it will fall back to BIOS mode.
Of course I did. DSK-PRO is faster e much better than that simple copier.
DSK-PRO is not just a simple copier as I said before.
FastCopy is also not a simple copier. Well, it's copying, but it's really FAST... Can you be more specific on which machine you used with your FastCopy test and how you tuned FastCopy to it? I want to understand why you got a different result than Meits.