4Gb CF Card Announced 309
An anonymous reader writes "Lexar has today announced that it now shipping a 4 GB 40x Compact Flash card. The card's claim to fame is the ability to store 600 RAW images taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera. This card also features Lexar's WA (Write Acceleration) technology which can improve performance further with WA enabled cameras. Because this card is larger than 2 GB, you will need a camera which is FAT32 compliant. This card is available now at the heady price of $1,499 ($0.37/MB). It looks like Lexar has managed to be faster then Hitachi (Former IBM storage division) with their 4Gb Microdrive."
$1500? (Score:2, Insightful)
4Gb or 4GB (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Al though (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus what is a typical life of a CF card ? I sure hope its more than 5 years If I am putting 1000$+ in it.
Plus the very though of loosing those 600 RAW images , if i loose the CF card is disturbing.
I would rather have a portable labtop with 20GB+ memory and a 1GB flash card.
Just get 4 1GB Microdrives (Score:4, Insightful)
Too big (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too big (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely- if you are juggling 4 different little pieces of plastic, the ability to lose one is a lot easier!
Why paging is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Many hobby OSes are not using paging in their development. While it is a well documented part of OS design and development, most new hobby OS makers are simply leaving it out with the reason that, if their OS ever did evolve to take up that much RAM, it's so cheap that one could easily buy more.
For the multi-tiered model to work, there would need to be specific slots for swapping memory, which would cost space on the motherboard. Then OS developers would have to start supporting this model.
While this is a fun idea, it isn't practical because:
a) Memory is *CHEAP* and if you run out of it, you can always page to the hard drive,
b) All modern systems and OSes support 1-4GB RAM, which is definitely enough for most (any?) consumer (at the moment),
c) If you have 4GB of RAM being used, you should be upgrading to a more powerful computer, not adding 256MB swap. Chances are you're going to need a lot more swap space than that if you're doing work requiring more than 4GB RAM.
d) Finally, if you use this extra 256MB RAM, you're still swapping anyway. So why not just make systems support more RAM in the first place?
I hope I adequately answered your question
Re:4Gb or 4GB (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unlimited storage support by using FORTH! (Score:3, Insightful)
The *real* boon in high-capacity CF (etc.) cards (Score:3, Insightful)
It frustrates me to no end that I carry around a rather remarkably-specced PDA that could handily play MP3s... but I'm hampered by limited storage. It's like being unable to drive your Corvette because you can't buy enough gas.
The high-capacity portable-medium format will obsolesce one device from my gadget arsenal. One less battery to recharge; one less file store to maintain; one less device for firmware, driver updates, and connectors.
David Stein, Esq.
yes, but probably not in a 4GB chunk (Score:1, Insightful)
in retrospect there are some advantages to getting two 40x 1GB cards, but i went for the 2GB for convenience' sake - off on a long holiday soon, want to shoot RAW, don't want to have too many bits to lose!
according to the numbers, speed-wise, the transfer rate is 1.5 - 2x faster. however, this doesn't take into account the faster instant response - my camera (eos d60) feels noticeably more responsive compared to the 1GB microdrive i've been using (though i'm sure this improvement is true of most solid-state cards). so, yes, a 32x or 40x does seem a good step-up from the microdrive.
other good investment - a USB2 multi-card reader (LaCie Universal Media Drive) for dumping the images off the camera. when you fill up one of those cards you really DON'T want to have to dump all the RAW images off the camera over USB 1! it's pretty much hours vs minutes for a large card like that...
maybe a 1Ds user will see the point in a 4GB drive, but even then you're better off getting 2GB cards instead. as the other posterd mentions, a single point of failure isn't a great idea if you're professional...
Re:best quote (Score:3, Insightful)
I use those USB pen drives. Very handy, and a similar concept. They're about the same price as CF, and most PCs have USB slots.
40x? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like measuring the power of a space shuttle's lunch rockets using horse power. "Oh, you mean if we tie down 1 million and a half horses to the shuttle we'd be able to get it off the ground? Impressive..."
Re:$1500? (Score:3, Insightful)
For pretty much all other uses, I'd agree that CF is probably the better choice.
Re:Cool, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm also a semi-pro with a Nikon D1X. I currently have the 1Gb IBM Microdrive. Shooting raw NEF pictures (which is all I ever shoot) I get about 130 pictures on a drive. I hate opening the camera up in the field, so bigger is defintely better. Using jpeg that same drive holds 400 pictures, but I NEVER use jpeg. When you're printing large, you can definitely see the artifacts.
BTW, the battery use in a pro camera like the D1X is very good. Since you can shoot lots of pictures without using the battery draining LCD, you can literally shoot all day on a single battery. I usually carry 1 spare. So, "film" not battery is defintely the limitation in this case.
Re:Just get 4 1GB Microdrives (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why paging is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope I adequately answered your question :).
This shouldn't have been modded up so high. It didn't answer the question at all.
The original poster wasn't asking why we don't do away with paging, he was asking why does the paging have to be done on the hard drive.
High-end RAM, the kind you want sitting on the motherboard, is still expensive compared to yesterdays cheap PC100/PC133. But the older RAM is still *way* faster than the hard drive.
So what he was asking was: Why can't we figure out a way to use this old, cheap RAM for swap space instead of the hard drive. In other words, he wants stick a bunch of old PC100/PC133 modules together, and make it look like a swap partition to the OS.
He's not the only one either. A $50 PCI card, or an extra $30 tacked onto the cost of the motherboard would pay for itself many times over if you could load it up with a few GB of RAM on the cheap. For big applications, servers, or users who run many apps at once, you could get away with buying a lot less of the expensive RAM if the swap penalty wasn't so great.
Now, there *are* people making PCI cards that can be loaded up with RAM and treated as a disk by the OS, but they are not common, and last I checked they certainly weren't cheap. But that's probably just because there's not much demand and little competition.
Compact Flash for Video (Score:2, Insightful)