Gordan Bobic wrote: [...] > I still think that putting NAND on for the sake of putting NAND on just > because it's cheap is a false economy. Given it isn't replaceable, it > would have to, IMO, offer very substantial performance benefits compared > to the easily replaceable alternatives (i.e. SD/uSD card). I own a Toshiba AC100 netbook. It's a really nice machine, apart from running on the totally undocumented Tegra2. But it does have one monster flaw: the root file system is on a eMMC device (an MMC chip soldered to the board), rather than real NAND. Performance is ~14MB/s. The dual-core Tegra2 is a pretty nippy chip but is currently crippled by storage bandwidth. Real NAND would be such an incredible improvement it's not funny --- vastly faster and much more robust because we're not relying on the manky little load-balancing microcontroller on the eMMC device. And given that the existing eMMC device is soldered down and not removable, there's no downside to NAND. (The AC100's also got an external SD card. I'm lucky to get over 10MB/s off that. It's usually 8!) -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ───── │ "I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my │ telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out │ how to use my telephone." --- Bjarne Stroustrup
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature