cpuerror
Member
Boomeranger said:Naturally, but you should have at least come up with a "real world" benchmark that benefits people, not something that suits nobody.
I'm certainly not interested in a 500 channel system. A cute stat but it's hardly going to change the way folks program their scanners. That's what you were saying!
Andy
Scannist
I know its not a realistic representation of how scanners are setup, but its not really meant to be. What it is meant to do is show that the scanner will tune sorted channels much faster then random channels and in the way I have it setup the time gap is much more pronounced then what you might have in a real-life system. The high number of channels also help keep any human error from effecting the numbers much.
If you did this on a real system, results are going to vary because each person's setup is unique, but it shows that there will be at least some increase in scan speed vs no sorting.
I did this test on my 246 of curiosity. The sorted systems took 5 seconds each to scan, the random one took 32 seconds to scan. There was someone else on this thread who said it helped double the scan speed on his 396. Thats 3 tests on 3 different scanners and the results agree.