Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Could flash memory replace DVD/Hard Drives if this pans out?

Reply
Thread Tools

Could flash memory replace DVD/Hard Drives if this pans out?

 
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
| In article <ka2sll$rkv$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana says...

| > Also, I don't see how it's all going to be supported over
| > the wires.
|
| Good luck downloading a 50GB movie...

Indeed. I supposedly have at least 25 mbs cable, which
should be about 3MBs. Yet this morning a download from
youtube came in at 43 KBs. Sometimes it's 2.1 MBs, but
that's rare. And we're only at the beginning of the transfer
of movies/TV/phone/video calling to the Internet.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
On Sunday, December 9, 2012 11:20:56 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <Se8xs.760464$(E-Mail Removed)4>, DanP says...
>
> > Not specified. HTML5 does not state which video formats can/should be
> > used.

>
>
> Fine, but then how can you be sure that HTML5 video will be less
> resource heavy and more sage than flash?


I have got back to that and said for me it is not at the moment, I was surprised to see same CPU usage for both HTML5 and Flash on Chromium under Ubuntu. My graphics card is low end though.

However, it opens up the possibility of someone doing it better. Safari does a good job playing HTML5 videos.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2012
On Saturday, December 8, 2012 4:48:08 PM UTC, Mayayana wrote:
> | Just for the record, I have no problem viewing HBO-GO, Netflix, ABC
>
> | News, NBC News, NBC Olympics, BBC News, CNN,The Weather Channel, AMC
>
> | Mobile, Speed, YouTube, TBS, ESPN3, NASA TV, and many more on my iPad &
>
> | iPhone without the benefit of Flash.
>
> |
>
>
>
> Interesting. I just tried loading a youtube video
>
> while pretending to be an iPad.


How can you pretend to be an iPad, did you place an Apple sticker on your forehead ?



 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On 09/12/2012 21:24, J. Clarke wrote:
[]
> In some cases software design becomes an issue. I have several
> applications that take 30 seconds or more to start up because the
> designers have chosen to perform some kind of extensive disk access at
> startup.


Don't we all! Those should take advantage of an SSD for the system
disk, assuming most of the access is reading the disk. Just the sort of
reasoning which made me configure this PC with 120 GB SSD (Windows and
most installed programs), 2 x 2 TB HD (data).
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:48:48 AM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 21:24, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> []
>
> > In some cases software design becomes an issue. I have several

>
> > applications that take 30 seconds or more to start up because the

>
> > designers have chosen to perform some kind of extensive disk access at

>
> > startup.

>
>
>
> Don't we all! Those should take advantage of an SSD for the system
>
> disk, assuming most of the access is reading the disk. Just the sort of
>
> reasoning which made me configure this PC with 120 GB SSD (Windows and
>
> most installed programs), 2 x 2 TB HD (data).
>


So any idea of how much time you actually save per day by having the systemand programs on a SSD rather than HDD ?
I hear plenty about how much faster SSD are but for teh vast majority the speed gained is minor in the real world.
I put my Mac to sleep so I can be up and running about 1-2 second after hitting a key, if I had a SSD maybe it would be faster, but I not yet preparedto spends a few hundred to save 1 or up to 2 seconds per day.
Maybe if I were processing 100s of images too that might be worth saving but I've yet to see anyone really gain from the increase in speed SSD give them, well photogrphers anyway I can see why compiling complex code on SSD might make it worth while, but for the 'average' photographer I'm not so sureor even the pro.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On 12/12/2012 13:50, Whisky-dave wrote:
[]
> So any idea of how much time you actually save per day by having the system and programs on a SSD rather than HDD ?
> I hear plenty about how much faster SSD are but for teh vast majority the speed gained is minor in the real world.
> I put my Mac to sleep so I can be up and running about 1-2 second after hitting a key, if I had a SSD maybe it would be faster, but I not yet prepared to spends a few hundred to save 1 or up to 2 seconds per day.
> Maybe if I were processing 100s of images too that might be worth saving but I've yet to see anyone really gain from the increase in speed SSD give them, well photogrphers anyway I can see why compiling complex code on SSD might make it worth while, but for the 'average' photographer I'm not so sure or even the pro.


You see a gain in anything which has to do a lot of disk read accesses -
searching a path for a command, for example, although having enough RAM
would also cause recently accessed disk data to be cached. In the case
of this PC, it was a new purchase, so it made sense to at least consider
an SSD as the system disk. I wouldn't like to put any figures to it,
except that the PC "feels" faster. Other people make stronger claims
than that.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:28:13 PM UTC, David Taylor wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 13:50, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> []
>
> > So any idea of how much time you actually save per day by having the system and programs on a SSD rather than HDD ?

>
> > I hear plenty about how much faster SSD are but for teh vast majority the speed gained is minor in the real world.

>
> > I put my Mac to sleep so I can be up and running about 1-2 second afterhitting a key, if I had a SSD maybe it would be faster, but I not yet prepared to spends a few hundred to save 1 or up to 2 seconds per day.

>
> > Maybe if I were processing 100s of images too that might be worth saving but I've yet to see anyone really gain from the increase in speed SSD give them, well photogrphers anyway I can see why compiling complex code on SSD might make it worth while, but for the 'average' photographer I'm not so sure or even the pro.

>
>
>
> You see a gain in anything which has to do a lot of disk read accesses -


No it's disk seek time is where teh majority of time saving happens.

>
> searching a path for a command, for example, although having enough RAM
>
> would also cause recently accessed disk data to be cached.


Exactly.


> In the case
>
> of this PC, it was a new purchase, so it made sense to at least consider
>
> an SSD as the system disk.


That's when I'd condier one.

> I wouldn't like to put any figures to it,
>
> except that the PC "feels" faster. Other people make stronger claims
>
> than that.


Yes I agree I see lots of claims, but little evidence.

I'd just like to see some real evidence of time saved.

I'm thinking along the lines of a person uses a computer for 4 hours
if tehy had a SSD they could do the same work in 2 hours becaise SSDs are faster, but I'm betting for teh vast majority the time saved in 4 hours willbe 5-10mins.
it's very similar to a person buying a car that can do 0-60 in 9 seconds compared to 15 seconds with their previous car therefor their journey time toand from work of 2 hours round trip will reduce by how much ?





>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> Web: http://www.satsignal.eu


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
On 12/12/2012 16:47, Whisky-dave wrote:
[]
> No it's disk seek time is where teh majority of time saving happens.
>
>>
>> searching a path for a command, for example, although having enough RAM
>>
>> would also cause recently accessed disk data to be cached.

>
> Exactly.
>
>
>> In the case
>>
>> of this PC, it was a new purchase, so it made sense to at least consider
>>
>> an SSD as the system disk.

>
> That's when I'd condier one.
>
>> I wouldn't like to put any figures to it,
>>
>> except that the PC "feels" faster. Other people make stronger claims
>>
>> than that.

>
> Yes I agree I see lots of claims, but little evidence.
>
> I'd just like to see some real evidence of time saved.
>
> I'm thinking along the lines of a person uses a computer for 4 hours
> if tehy had a SSD they could do the same work in 2 hours becaise SSDs are faster, but I'm betting for teh vast majority the time saved in 4 hours will be 5-10mins.
> it's very similar to a person buying a car that can do 0-60 in 9 seconds compared to 15 seconds with their previous car therefor their journey time to and from work of 2 hours round trip will reduce by how much ?


When I wrote read accesses I was envisaging the whole process, including
seek, of course.

If those 4 hours included 50 invokes of photoshop, and the system was
memory limited to that the program wasn't cached, adding an SSD might
produce a noticeable improvement, although my view is that adding more
memory (if the OS and motherboard allow), or a second display, might
also increase productivity.

Naturally, you make your own decision as to whether the SSD is worth the
extra expense. I haven't upgraded any of my PCs to SSD, but for a new
purchase it was the obvious choice (and just 120 GB to keep the price down).
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2012
| And a lot of TVs have those built in already, these days (like our
| Samsung, couple of years old now).

You might want to look at this:

http://securityledger.com/security-h...remote-spying/


 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:47:27 PM UTC, Whisky-dave wrote:

> I'm thinking along the lines of a person uses a computer for 4 hours
>
> if tehy had a SSD they could do the same work in 2 hours becaise SSDs are faster, but I'm betting for teh vast majority the time saved in 4 hours will be 5-10mins.
>
> it's very similar to a person buying a car that can do 0-60 in 9 seconds compared to 15 seconds with their previous car therefor their journey time to and from work of 2 hours round trip will reduce by how much ?
>


Look at it the other way, with an older system the work you do now in 4 hours will be done in 5 maybe. The price for an older system is significantly lower yet you choose to upgrade.

BTW, the price for a SSD is roughly a fifth of computer, maybe less.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown Frank Computer Support 2 02-06-2008 06:14 AM
Losing Drives - Finding Drives - Losing Drives mel@no.spam.com Computer Support 2 09-21-2007 10:16 PM
Vista and Flash Drives (Thumb/USB drives) Arawak Computer Support 2 04-25-2007 10:18 PM
Could flash drives replace high def blue ray ? habshi DVD Video 12 01-30-2007 12:16 AM
Any cameras capable of using USB flash drives as extra memory? PeterH Digital Photography 14 09-30-2003 07:03 PM



Advertisments