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?

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2012
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:24:57 PM UTC, DanP wrote:
> 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 older system is likely to have a slower bus speed, slower processor, less cache, and less RAM amonst other things.

> The price for an older system is significantly lower yet you choose to upgrade.


Not usually .

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


so 20% that's quite a bit and I'd sdaying paying 20% more for a higher speed processor would get most workm done quicker rather than spending the money on a small SSD.

So still no real result of just how much faster a person can get the work done via a SSD as aposed to a HDD.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-14-2012
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:38:52 PM UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:24:57 -0800 (PST), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >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.

>
> >

>
> I think the critical point about SSD speed is not the number of
>
> seconds or minutes it saves during the day but the extent to which it
>
> reduces the interuptions to which your mental processes are subject
>
> while you are working.


I don't agree with that, it just doesn;t make sense, the fatser parts of a computer is the Graphics RAM get a better grpahics card.
Of course identifying these 'interuptions'in the key, for me the biggest 'interuption' is uploading to a site or printing SSDs will do little to speed up either process.



>
>
>
> Years ago I watched an Apollo (anyone here old enough to remember
>
> them)


Don;t thiunk I'm old enough to but i do remmeber having to phome a compony up to get the applos serviced and as the contract was 1000s per year we got rid of them about 1 moht later this was early 80s.

>regenerate a picture of a shoe. It took so long there was time
>
> to go away to both make and drink a cup of coffee.


I assume the slowness was down to processor speed rather than disc access.


> Ten years later I was working with CAD systems which took two or three
>
> minutes to regenerate a complex screen image after making a change.


yes true and the processes were speeded up primarlity from faster processors, not with new faster discs.


> Not long ago Photo Paint used to take about 30 seconds to regenerate
>
> the image after applying an action to it.
>
>
>
> You can still watch the image regenerate over what seems like seconds
>
> in Paint Shop Pro X5, even with an i7 and 8GB of 64 bit RAM.


Have you compared this test using a HDD & SSD
You might be better off speed wise with a Mac and photoshop perhaps it's paintshop pro is the problem.

I aslo believe that if spending an extra 100 or more on a SSD the buyer would be better off putting that money to a better or faster prcessor.

>
>
>
> One reason I like Nikon NX2 is that the screen responds to most
>
> actions almost instantaneously. Not quite instantaneously but
>
> certainly in a fraction of a second.


Never used it and it's the firsts I've heard of it.
Is it better than other products ?
Better than aperature which is 1/3rd of the price, or iphoto which is free,
or any of teh other products about ?



>
>
>
> Just think how nice it would be to have a computer that worked as fast
>
> as you could think,


I've pretty much got that.


> so that you never had to stop and wait for the
>
> machine to catch up with you. That's where I think the greatest
>
> benefits will be obtained with SSD.


And it's where I think it will be least effective.

My biggest bottle neck would be printer I dont; see how a SSD will significanly speed up printing.

>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2012
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:38:52 PM UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> I think the critical point about SSD speed is not the number of
> seconds or minutes it saves during the day but the extent to which it
>
> reduces the interuptions to which your mental processes are subject
> while you are working.
>
> Years ago I watched an Apollo (anyone here old enough to remember
> them) regenerate a picture of a shoe. It took so long there was time
> to go away to both make and drink a cup of coffee.
>
>
>
> Ten years later I was working with CAD systems which took two or three
> minutes to regenerate a complex screen image after making a change.
>
>
>
> Not long ago Photo Paint used to take about 30 seconds to regenerate
> the image after applying an action to it.
>
> You can still watch the image regenerate over what seems like seconds
> in Paint Shop Pro X5, even with an i7 and 8GB of 64 bit RAM.
>
> One reason I like Nikon NX2 is that the screen responds to most
> actions almost instantaneously. Not quite instantaneously but
> certainly in a fraction of a second.
>
> Just think how nice it would be to have a computer that worked as fast
> as you could think, so that you never had to stop and wait for the
> machine to catch up with you. That's where I think the greatest
> benefits will be obtained with SSD.
>


10 years ago I was using a CAD/CAM system so well I was thinking what to do and my fingers just touched the right keys to do it.

Six years ago I have switched to another program, I hated it, I had thought the sequence of actions but because the interface wasn't that great by the time I pressed the icons and dialogues I had forgotten what I had to do and had to go thought it again.

Well, for some that instant feeling matters.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2012
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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...


More CPU cycles == better compression
More CPU cycles == better decompression at life speed
Internet connections getting faster (what speed did you have
10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago)

Means that the 50GB today is much less of a problem tomorrow.

JFTR: 50GB: less than 3 hours download here. And it'd probably
be streamed anyway. I could get 3x the speed and 2x the upload
speed I have for 15 EUR/month more. (Though I'd need gigabyte
ethernet to handle that.)

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2012
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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 system and programs on a SSD rather than HDD ?


That depends.

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


Again, that depends. If you do many small reads and writes,
SSDs (with TRIM(!)) rock, they are usually several orders of
magnitude faster (due to near-zero seek time). For large reads,
they're only 2-6 times faster than an ordinary up-to-date
hard drive. For large writes, it depends on the HD and SSD you
compare, and with the SSD, how much erase blocks are currently
free ...

> 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.


That's not the point of an SSD, and you know it.

> 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.


Naah. Compiling is CPU-bound.
Try mass changing parameters for a couple thousand RAWs ---
which means touching a couple thousand RAW files or their
sidecar files to record the settings.

-Wolfgang
 
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