On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 05:48:34PM -0500, Vikki Roemer wrote:
> Well, come to think of it, RAM is a kinda interesting-- DDR, SDRAM,
> RDRAM, etc. Or at least, there's more to keep track of. HDDs,
> outside of size, don't vary much AFAICT. *shrug*
I'm looking at the falling compact-flash prices, and growing sizes, to
use them instead of HDD which I hate. I hate HDD's because I cannot put
one in my notebook, and then run with it, powered on, in my pocket to
the train station. I've done that once and now I have 192 MB of bad
sectors on it.
512 MB cards now go for 140 USD, there are even some 1 GB, but for 460
USD. When there will come out 2 GB ones, and then when their price will
drop below the price of four 512 MB cards, I'll get one of these, and
won't use a HDD again. My used space never goes over 2 GB anyway.
These cards withstand shocks of 1000 G, typical HDD only 75 G. Their
random access time is ~ 1 microsecond, typical HDD: ~ 10 milisecond.
The sustained transfer rate is about 10 times smaller, but I don't care
about that - it's important only when transferring large files, with
small files random access time is much more important.
> Hmm, I'm not sure. But how can you *see* anything at that high a
> resolution?
Hmm. How you can see something on a 600 dpi printout then?
Why do people want higher resolution printers, scanners, etc?
1280x1024 on a 15" LCD means only 107 dpi.
--
Miernik ____________________________________________________
___ ICQ: 4004001 ___/___ tel.: +48608233394 ___/ mailto:miernik@ctnet.pl
No Iraq war! http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/invadeIraq082702.html
Please call the White House +1-202-456-1111 or fax +1-202-456-2461 and say no!
Attachment:
pgpideJWzT5cu.pgp
Description: PGP signature