this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
737 points (98.8% liked)
memes
15272 readers
5400 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Horribly, it read the disk into a memory buffer, then played from the buffer. Ram was expensive, tiny, and power hungry back then. It was pretty shock-sensitive too. Every time it detected a fail, it would have to seek/re-read the section. If you had some decent bass, the song itself could set it off :)
It wasn't the buffer itself that drew power. It was the need to physically spin the disc faster in order to read the data to build up a buffer. So it would draw more power even if you left it physically stable. And then, if it would actually skip in reading, it would need to seek back to where it was to build up the buffer again.
Sure didn't seem like it was doing that, It took 6 seconds for it to start playing to fill that six second buffer. But I lacked the equipment to test its playback speed back then. So maybe you're right.