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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:27:53 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > In article <42uws.699990$4>, DanP says...
    >> Flash needs to be killed.
    >> It hogs the CPU, poses security risks

    >
    > Why would HTML5 video not hog the CPU and not pose security risks?
    >
    > It would be nice if HTML5 was widespread because of all those additional
    > things you can do with it, but at the moment (and this has been going on
    > for years), browser support is very, very limited and the rate of
    > progress is painfully slow.


    I have played an Youtube video through both Flash and HTML5 on Chromium
    in Ubuntu and contrary to what I have read previously I found same CPU
    load, so you have a point. I know Apple did a good job with Safari HTML5
    so it can go both ways.

    Flash as it is poses security risks. HTML5 in itself does not but it
    would be used with JavaScript which is another risk but is one we have it
    already.

    Each browser would do its own implementation, an HTML5 page would just
    tell the browser to play a video, how that is done remains to be decided
    by the browser. The webpage HTML5 code would be plain, simple and easily
    readable therefore more secure.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Dec 9, 2012
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012120811564577923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

    | Who bothers with the cat crap?

    | There is a mass of worthwhile video content online, here are a few
    suggestions:
    | < http://www.ted.com/talks >
    | < http://kelbytv.com/ >
    | < http://www.speedtv.com/programs/primetime/formula-one >
    |

    KelbyTV is something I didn't know about, and one
    can download the videos. The path is right there in
    the source code.

    TED talks is something I knew about but never found
    anything of interest there. To my mind there's a lot
    of talk out there but original thinkers are few and far
    between. The very idea of TED is flawed:
    Technology, Entertainment, Design
    Such limited scope. And putting "entertainment"
    in there belies dull minds. It's like the way newspapers
    have sections for "Arts and Entertainment". Those
    two words are almost opposites.

    So, yes, there are some worthwhile things online. It's
    amazing how much. Just this AM I was watching
    a video of a Carl Jung interview. It's incredible that
    such things are so easily available. But, to each their
    own. For me there are few things of real interest that
    I want to spend time on. The things I do want to see
    are usually things I go looking for, on youtube or obscure
    private websites. They're videos that I can download
    a copy of. I have no interest in using the Internet as
    a TV medium, and it's a security risk to do so.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 9, 2012
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:18:33 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > In article <2012120811564577923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    > says...
    >> Android is also dumping Flash.

    >
    > What makes you think so?


    Google once removed Flash from their UK app store then reinstated it
    because BBC requires it at the moment. They will remove it again "soon".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19428902 or http://goo.gl/a9wJf


    DanP
     
    DanP, Dec 9, 2012
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <ka2djl$joa$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > I have no interest in using the Internet as
    > a TV medium,


    suit yourself, however, the rest of the world definitely does.

    the majority of internet traffic today is used for video and audio
    streaming, and about half of it from netflix alone.

    getting entertainment over the internet is the future.

    > and it's a security risk to do so.


    maybe on windows there is, but on something like an ipad or set top
    box, there is no risk.
     
    nospam, Dec 9, 2012
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Each browser would do its own implementation, an HTML5 page would just
    > > tell the browser to play a video

    >
    > In what format?


    standard ones, like h.264, mpeg4, etc.
     
    nospam, Dec 9, 2012
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2012120908480531729-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > The thing is, technology is moving faster than some can keep up with,
    > and some of the content which was only available online such as Youtube
    > is available via the "Smart TV" technology.
    > I recently bought a new flat screen TV for my living room and a Blu-Ray
    > player for my bedroom (I already had one in the living room). Both have
    > the "Smart TV" feature. They connect either directly to my router, or
    > to my home network via WiFi. I can access Youtube, NetFlix, HuluPlus,
    > and much more.
    >
    > ...and the Sony BDP-S590 Blu-Ray player was on sale at Target for $128.


    and if you don't need blu-ray, a roku box is $49.
     
    nospam, Dec 9, 2012
  7. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | and if you don't need blu-ray, a roku box is $49.

    I was looking into that recently, but it seems to be
    "less than meets the eye". There's Netflix on it, but
    when I searched for things I might be interested in they
    weren't on the online version of Netflix.... Hulu is mainly
    TV, as far as I can tell.... It looks like a technology that
    might be the only way to go in 5 years, but that's
    not quite there at this point.

    I also wonder about the eventual cost. Right now
    Netflix online is amazingly cheap. But if they ever
    get a good selection of movies it will probably go up.
    Also, I don't see how it's all going to be supported over
    the wires. As you said, Netflix is already a big chunk
    of Internet traffic. As more and more radio/TV/phone
    service goes over the Internet, someone is going to
    have to pay for a lot of infrastructure upgrading.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 9, 2012
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <k9pl0o$13n$>, david-
    d says...
    >
    > On 05/12/2012 23:41, Rob wrote:
    > []
    > > I can't understand why so many people are obsessed with speed.
    > >
    > > SSD are not affordable for the average person.
    > >
    > > I see no point to buy SSD drives for photo editing.
    > >
    > > The sweet spot in the price range for a new computer is ideal for most.
    > >
    > > I would rather fill all the memory slots than buy a SSD.

    >
    > Yes, maxing out the memory is usually the best way to improve speed on a
    > PC, although /if/ you are doing something which is very disk I/O
    > intensive getting a faster disk may be the better choice. Even to the
    > extent of using the extra RAM as a RAMdisk and saving the results once
    > they are complete.
    >
    > The best combination with today's prices is a relative small SSD for the
    > operating system (60-120 GB) and however many 2-3 TB hard disks you need
    > for data storage. Just possibly getting one of the HDs with a built-in
    > few GB of SSD cache may be a good compromise - I've not seen many
    > real-world test, though. Example
    >
    >
    > http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/laptop-hard-drives/momentus-xt-hybrid/#
    >
    > http://www.seagate.com/files/static...c/momentus-xt-data-sheet-ds1704-4-1205-us.pdf
    >
    > Although, in terms of productivity, the best gain I ever made was buying
    > a second monitor!


    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 9, 2012
  9. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:34:44 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    > In article <Lt%ws.668184$4>, DanP says...
    >> Each browser would do its own implementation, an HTML5 page would just
    >> tell the browser to play a video

    >
    > In what format?


    Not specified. HTML5 does not state which video formats can/should be
    used.

    Future revisions of the standard might address that once some video
    formats are firmly established, and that will be decided by the use of it
    on websites.

    H.264 looks good, only Mozilla Firefox (a plugin for Windows exists
    though) and Opera lack support for it.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Dec 9, 2012
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2012120916055751816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > On 2012-12-09 15:19:26 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
    >
    > >> Also, I don't see how it's all going to be supported over
    > >> the wires.

    > >
    > > Good luck downloading a 50GB movie...

    >
    > Where on Earth would you find a 50GB movie?
    >
    > Most DVD's with extras run 7-8GB the same in Blu-Ray might run 20-25GB.
    > If encoded as an HD mp4, main feature only, you would be looking at,
    > for example, 1.57GB for "The Big Lebowski", 741.5MB for "Winter's
    > Bone", and 1.37GB for "There Will be Blood".


    and even if there was a movie that big, if it's streamed, the total
    size doesn't matter.

    it only needs to download enough to fill the buffer so there won't be
    any drops during the movie, which is significantly less than the total
    size.
     
    nospam, Dec 10, 2012
  11. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | In article <ka2sll$rkv$>, 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.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 10, 2012
  12. RichA

    DanP Guest

    On Sunday, December 9, 2012 11:20:56 PM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <Se8xs.760464$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
     
    DanP, Dec 10, 2012
  13. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    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 ?
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 10, 2012
  14. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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
     
    David Taylor, Dec 12, 2012
  15. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    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.
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 12, 2012
  16. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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
     
    David Taylor, Dec 12, 2012
  17. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    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
     
    Whisky-dave, Dec 12, 2012
  18. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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
     
    David Taylor, Dec 12, 2012
  19. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    Mayayana, Dec 12, 2012
  20. RichA

    DanP Guest

    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
     
    DanP, Dec 13, 2012
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris

    Could hardware repeatedly knack hard drives?

    Chris, May 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    383
    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
    May 3, 2004
  2. habshi
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,178
    AZ Nomad
    Jan 30, 2007
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    718
  4. Ian

    How often should you replace hard drives?

    Ian, Nov 2, 2007, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,273
  5. Frank

    Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown

    Frank, Feb 6, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    479
    Rev Turd Fredericks
    Feb 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page