Flash cards may be used for archiving

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ASAAR, Feb 27, 2007.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    ASAAR, Feb 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR

    Mark B. Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >
    >> SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp

    >


    Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use of
    write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Feb 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:26:37 -0500, Mark B. wrote:

    >> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.

    > . . .
    >
    > Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use of
    > write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.


    They may have some utility for gov't or law enforcement use to
    prevent accidental or intentional tampering. Also, if a compatible
    card reader/writer is designed for them, they wouldn't have to be
    used in a camera. The cards could then be used to archive just the
    keepers, even those produced by old, incompatible cameras.

    The picture of part of the flash chip's multiple layer array
    suggests that very high densities are possible, several DVD's worth
    (or more) per chip. This might allow a matchbox to hold lifetime's
    worth of a family's shots. Easy to lose, but also easy to make
    backup copies that could be stored in several locations. Much
    easier than trying to find space to store backup copies of hundreds
    of CDs, which would also take a considerable amount of time and
    patience to produce. Also, even a "write once" chip could allow for
    logical changes, such as reorganizing archived files into different
    folders they way it can be done with multi-session CDRs.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 27, 2007
    #3
  4. ASAAR

    timeOday Guest

    Mark B. wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>
    >>
    >>>SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>>
    >>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp

    >>

    >
    > Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use of
    > write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >


    Agreed. I would prefer it in USB stick rather than CF format.

    I will be eager to ditch optical media. I find them unreliable.

    The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    be significantly cheaper than write-many.
     
    timeOday, Feb 27, 2007
    #4
  5. ASAAR

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:13:24 -0700, timeOday
    <> wrote:

    >Mark B. wrote:
    >> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp
    >>>

    >>
    >> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use of
    >> write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.
    >>
    >> Mark
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Agreed. I would prefer it in USB stick rather than CF format.
    >
    >I will be eager to ditch optical media. I find them unreliable.
    >
    >The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >be significantly cheaper than write-many.


    They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 27, 2007
    #5
  6. "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:26:37 -0500, Mark B. wrote:
    >
    >>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.

    >> . . .
    >>
    >> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use
    >> of
    >> write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.

    >
    > They may have some utility for gov't or law enforcement use to
    > prevent accidental or intentional tampering. Also, if a compatible
    > card reader/writer is designed for them, they wouldn't have to be
    > used in a camera. The cards could then be used to archive just the
    > keepers, even those produced by old, incompatible cameras.


    That is an interesting point. However, as far as forensic photography is
    concerned, photographs of any kind are being shoved into the category
    inhabited by lie detector tests (generally not admissible as evidence).
    There are sooooo many ways to alter them.
     
    Charles Schuler, Feb 27, 2007
    #6
  7. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:55:54 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

    >>The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >>be significantly cheaper than write-many.

    >
    > They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.


    I think that what you read was a price reported at the 2002 PMA.
    I don't know what flash ram prices were back then but sometime in
    2000 or 2001 I bought a 32MB and 48MB flash card because the cost
    of 64MB cards was too high. IIRC, the 32MB card cost about $70 and
    128MB cards went for more than $200. They probably also wouldn't
    have issue projected future prices, so it's reasonable to assume
    that eventually they would have expected the $15 price to drop to
    maybe $5 or less. It would be foolish to announce an estimated $15
    price and then start selling the first ones off the production line
    for $50. I can't say whether these new cards will be significantly
    cheaper than standard flash memory, but prices of those are already
    fairly low with some 1GB cards selling for $15 or less (I bought a
    couple last year for $19). If 8GB write-once cards sell for $15,
    even though that's quite a bit more expensive than CDs or DVDs, it
    would be very affordable for those looking for fast, reliable, very
    compact archival media. And we can assume that prices will drop,
    assuming that these write-once cards ever become more than vaporware
    and people choose to buy them.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 27, 2007
    #7
  8. ASAAR

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:00:26 -0500, "Charles Schuler"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:26:37 -0500, Mark B. wrote:
    >>
    >>>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>> . . .
    >>>
    >>> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use
    >>> of
    >>> write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.

    >>
    >> They may have some utility for gov't or law enforcement use to
    >> prevent accidental or intentional tampering. Also, if a compatible
    >> card reader/writer is designed for them, they wouldn't have to be
    >> used in a camera. The cards could then be used to archive just the
    >> keepers, even those produced by old, incompatible cameras.

    >
    >That is an interesting point. However, as far as forensic photography is
    >concerned, photographs of any kind are being shoved into the category
    >inhabited by lie detector tests (generally not admissible as evidence).
    >There are sooooo many ways to alter them.
    >

    Actually, that depends on what the photo is purported to show, and the
    provenance.
    Photos are frequently included as evidence, digital and film.

    --
    Hillary Clinton said Friday
    she'd use Bill Clinton as a
    diplomat. She is not worried
    about him at all. At the rate
    the Bush foreign policy is
    progressing, soon every country
    in the world will require their
    women to be covered from head
    to toe.
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 27, 2007
    #8
  9. The problem is according to the information the largest write once card is
    256MB. I have seen nothing that talks about these being available in
    multiple GB configurations. They would have to price these use once cards at
    $4 or $5 for 1GB before I think anyone but our wasteful government would
    consider using them. If you can get a 2GB SD card for $15, which you can
    (not a name brand, but any who) why would you spent $15 for a use once 256MB
    card? You wouldn't.

    However, maybe they will get larger and cheaper?


    TGC Ltd.


    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:55:54 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >>>The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >>>be significantly cheaper than write-many.

    >>
    >> They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.

    >
    > I think that what you read was a price reported at the 2002 PMA.
    > I don't know what flash ram prices were back then but sometime in
    > 2000 or 2001 I bought a 32MB and 48MB flash card because the cost
    > of 64MB cards was too high. IIRC, the 32MB card cost about $70 and
    > 128MB cards went for more than $200. They probably also wouldn't
    > have issue projected future prices, so it's reasonable to assume
    > that eventually they would have expected the $15 price to drop to
    > maybe $5 or less. It would be foolish to announce an estimated $15
    > price and then start selling the first ones off the production line
    > for $50. I can't say whether these new cards will be significantly
    > cheaper than standard flash memory, but prices of those are already
    > fairly low with some 1GB cards selling for $15 or less (I bought a
    > couple last year for $19). If 8GB write-once cards sell for $15,
    > even though that's quite a bit more expensive than CDs or DVDs, it
    > would be very affordable for those looking for fast, reliable, very
    > compact archival media. And we can assume that prices will drop,
    > assuming that these write-once cards ever become more than vaporware
    > and people choose to buy them.
    >
     
    The Grape Smasher Ltd., Feb 28, 2007
    #9
  10. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:38:43 -0800, The Grape Smasher Ltd. wrote:

    > The problem is according to the information the largest write once card is
    > 256MB. I have seen nothing that talks about these being available in
    > multiple GB configurations. They would have to price these use once cards at
    > $4 or $5 for 1GB before I think anyone but our wasteful government would
    > consider using them. If you can get a 2GB SD card for $15, which you can
    > (not a name brand, but any who) why would you spent $15 for a use once 256MB
    > card? You wouldn't.


    I wasn't aware that they were already available. I also assumed
    that since they can't be used in existing cameras that they also
    would need new, compatible card readers. That being the case I
    wouldn't think I'd be shopping for any of these write-once cards
    until at least some time next year, by which time one hopes that
    much larger cards would be available. By then standard 4GB and
    larger flash cards should be cheap enough for me to consider using
    them for limited archiving use even if write-once cards never darken
    my path.


    > However, maybe they will get larger and cheaper?


    That's my assumption, assuming that the product succeeds in the
    marketplace.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 28, 2007
    #10
  11. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    timeOday wrote:
    > Mark B. wrote:
    >> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp
    >>>

    >>
    >> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best
    >> use of write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.
    >>
    >> Mark
    >>

    >
    > Agreed. I would prefer it in USB stick rather than CF format.
    >
    > I will be eager to ditch optical media. I find them unreliable.
    >
    > The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    > be significantly cheaper than write-many.


    For many years (over 50 in my case), I paid for film, took pictures,
    paid for developing, and printing. Given fluctuating costs, and
    inflation, the price of getting a viewable image increased over the
    years. To make it simple, let's compare the price of just the film, and
    the cost of digital media.
    If I paid only $1 for a roll of 35mm film, with 36 frames, and tool 400
    pictures, the cost would be about $11. It is already possible to find
    256 meg. SD cards for under $10. So, it is already cheaper to fill an
    SD card, and just store it like developed film, save the developing
    cost, and still have the original data. Just buy more SD cards. Now I
    don't know just how long these cards will retain their data, but from a
    cost standpoint, this is already a feasible idea.

    That said, I have no intention of buying a write-once flash card.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2007
    #11
  12. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Charles Schuler wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:26:37 -0500, Mark B. wrote:
    >>
    >>>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>> . . .
    >>>
    >>> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use
    >>> of
    >>> write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.

    >> They may have some utility for gov't or law enforcement use to
    >> prevent accidental or intentional tampering. Also, if a compatible
    >> card reader/writer is designed for them, they wouldn't have to be
    >> used in a camera. The cards could then be used to archive just the
    >> keepers, even those produced by old, incompatible cameras.

    >
    > That is an interesting point. However, as far as forensic photography is
    > concerned, photographs of any kind are being shoved into the category
    > inhabited by lie detector tests (generally not admissible as evidence).
    > There are sooooo many ways to alter them.
    >
    >

    There are many ways to alter film, and always have been. As in any
    evidence gathering situation, the integrity of the 'chain of custody' is
    more important than the medium.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2007
    #12
  13. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:13:24 -0700, timeOday
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Mark B. wrote:
    >>> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp
    >>> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use of
    >>> write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.
    >>>
    >>> Mark
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Agreed. I would prefer it in USB stick rather than CF format.
    >>
    >> I will be eager to ditch optical media. I find them unreliable.
    >>
    >> The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >> be significantly cheaper than write-many.

    >
    > They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.


    With Fry's selling 1GB cards for under $10? Oh sure, give me a gross of
    those 64meg cards!
    Ridiculous!
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2007
    #13
  14. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:55:54 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >>> The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >>> be significantly cheaper than write-many.

    >> They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.

    >
    > I think that what you read was a price reported at the 2002 PMA.
    > I don't know what flash ram prices were back then but sometime in
    > 2000 or 2001 I bought a 32MB and 48MB flash card because the cost
    > of 64MB cards was too high. IIRC, the 32MB card cost about $70 and
    > 128MB cards went for more than $200. They probably also wouldn't
    > have issue projected future prices, so it's reasonable to assume
    > that eventually they would have expected the $15 price to drop to
    > maybe $5 or less. It would be foolish to announce an estimated $15
    > price and then start selling the first ones off the production line
    > for $50. I can't say whether these new cards will be significantly
    > cheaper than standard flash memory, but prices of those are already
    > fairly low with some 1GB cards selling for $15 or less (I bought a
    > couple last year for $19). If 8GB write-once cards sell for $15,
    > even though that's quite a bit more expensive than CDs or DVDs, it
    > would be very affordable for those looking for fast, reliable, very
    > compact archival media. And we can assume that prices will drop,
    > assuming that these write-once cards ever become more than vaporware
    > and people choose to buy them.
    >


    They will have to be cheaper than the current line of cards, or there
    will be little motivation for their purchase.
    Does anyone REALLY know how long current flash media will retain their
    data is stored in normal room environments? I don't believe I have seen
    any information on this, reliable, or otherwise.
     
    Ron Hunter, Feb 28, 2007
    #14
  15. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:50:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    [J. Clarke:]
    >> They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.

    >
    > With Fry's selling 1GB cards for under $10? Oh sure, give me a gross of
    > those 64meg cards!
    > Ridiculous!


    Not as ridiculous as the premise. How do you compare a 64MB card
    from 2002 that was never introduced as a commercial product with a
    real 1GB card selling in 2007 for $10? Following the dpreview link
    to their PMA 2002 report shows a 64MB MMC "prototype". Repeat -
    MMC. Not SD, not CF, but an MMC prototype. And "they" weren't
    "talking 15 bucks for 64 meg." To be slightly more accurate and to
    not spin the info. in the direction that supports the bogus premise,
    the Matrix spokesman said that the cost would be $10 to $15 for a
    64MB card and that this price was so low because the cards could be
    "made far more cheaply than standard Flash storage". From a minor
    slipup (not catching the year of the PMA 2002 report) we now have
    more than one person erroneously thinking that the write-once memory
    must be far more expensive than standard flash RAM. Your
    "Ridiculous!" was completely correct, but not the way you intended.
    As has been noted before, the devil is in the details! <g>
     
    ASAAR, Feb 28, 2007
    #15
  16. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:53:34 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    > They will have to be cheaper than the current line of cards, or there
    > will be little motivation for their purchase.


    They probably will be. If you follow dpreview's link to the
    Sandisk discussion reported by PC Magazine you'll see some of the
    reasons why Sandisk may succeed in selling them for very low prices.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2098505,00.asp


    > Does anyone REALLY know how long current flash media will retain their
    > data is stored in normal room environments? I don't believe I have seen
    > any information on this, reliable, or otherwise.


    I haven't either, but based on my own experience of never having
    any flash media that lost data my instinct is to believe that it's
    longer than floppies, tape, DVDs and probably most CDs. Also, the
    main failure mode that has been reported occurs when individual data
    cells are written to too many times. So if even standard flash
    memory is used for archival purposes it will avoid being subjected
    to its known Achilles Heel.

    Looking at the photo of a small section of the actual chip, and
    reading "'blows the bit fuses' inside the memory cell" brings to
    mind fusible link PROMs that IIRC were more reliable than EPROMs, so
    I'd think that this new flash RAM probably will be very long lived.
    The 100+ year life claimed by Matrix back in 2002 and by Sandisk in
    2007 seems reasonable. Based on a perhaps too close reading of what
    Sandisk executives said, there's a chance that these cards won't be
    made in the super large sizes that I'd like to see. They're talking
    about a product that would be more like "film", and there could be a
    requirement that this "film" would have to be returned to
    Walgreen's, Rite-Aid, Wal-Mart, etc. to "develop" the film into its
    archival state. And then while you're there, they'd be only too
    happy to make some prints for you. <g> Sandisk said that it their
    write-once cards are currently being tested in a pilot program with
    a single retailer. I'd like to know in which country the program
    has been set up. USA? Japan? Turkmenistan?
     
    ASAAR, Feb 28, 2007
    #16
  17. ASAAR

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:48:13 -0600, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >timeOday wrote:
    >> Mark B. wrote:
    >>> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best
    >>> use of write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.
    >>>
    >>> Mark
    >>>

    >>
    >> Agreed. I would prefer it in USB stick rather than CF format.
    >>
    >> I will be eager to ditch optical media. I find them unreliable.
    >>
    >> The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >> be significantly cheaper than write-many.

    >
    >For many years (over 50 in my case), I paid for film, took pictures,
    >paid for developing, and printing. Given fluctuating costs, and
    >inflation, the price of getting a viewable image increased over the
    >years. To make it simple, let's compare the price of just the film, and
    >the cost of digital media.
    >If I paid only $1 for a roll of 35mm film, with 36 frames, and tool 400
    >pictures, the cost would be about $11. It is already possible to find
    >256 meg. SD cards for under $10. So, it is already cheaper to fill an
    >SD card, and just store it like developed film, save the developing
    >cost, and still have the original data. Just buy more SD cards. Now I
    >don't know just how long these cards will retain their data, but from a
    >cost standpoint, this is already a feasible idea.
    >
    >That said, I have no intention of buying a write-once flash card.


    If it's not really flash, if it's old fashioned burn out the fuses
    ROM, with a read/write circuit added that works at the same signal
    levels as SD/MMC then it might be pretty good for archival storage.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 28, 2007
    #17
  18. I agree Ron. With regular SD cards for example being available at 2GB for
    $15 at TigerDirect I see no reason what-so-ever to use a write once card.
    Even for archiving. Now the police and FBI may suck these up as it makes it
    much harder to alter the images on them and that I would think would be good
    for court cases for the public I see no real benefit or need for them.

    CDs and DVDs get away with the read-only because they are cheap for a good
    amount of storage and they are used for many things from computers, to car
    stereo's, etc.

    TGC Ltd.


    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > timeOday wrote:
    >> Mark B. wrote:
    >>> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> But the long-life cards won't work with existing cameras.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> SanDisk to deliver write-once flash
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022601sandiskwriteonceflash.asp
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Everyone keeps talking about using these in cameras. Why? The best use
    >>> of write-once media, it seems to me, is to only archive your keepers.
    >>>
    >>> Mark
    >>>

    >>
    >> Agreed. I would prefer it in USB stick rather than CF format.
    >>
    >> I will be eager to ditch optical media. I find them unreliable.
    >>
    >> The big question in my mind is whether this write-once flash memory will
    >> be significantly cheaper than write-many.

    >
    > For many years (over 50 in my case), I paid for film, took pictures, paid
    > for developing, and printing. Given fluctuating costs, and inflation, the
    > price of getting a viewable image increased over the years. To make it
    > simple, let's compare the price of just the film, and the cost of digital
    > media.
    > If I paid only $1 for a roll of 35mm film, with 36 frames, and tool 400
    > pictures, the cost would be about $11. It is already possible to find 256
    > meg. SD cards for under $10. So, it is already cheaper to fill an SD
    > card, and just store it like developed film, save the developing cost, and
    > still have the original data. Just buy more SD cards. Now I don't know
    > just how long these cards will retain their data, but from a cost
    > standpoint, this is already a feasible idea.
    >
    > That said, I have no intention of buying a write-once flash card.
     
    The Grape Smasher Ltd., Feb 28, 2007
    #18
  19. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:50:41 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    > [J. Clarke:]
    >>> They're talking 15 bucks for 64 meg. Looks like a non-starter to me.

    >> With Fry's selling 1GB cards for under $10? Oh sure, give me a gross of
    >> those 64meg cards!
    >> Ridiculous!

    >
    > Not as ridiculous as the premise. How do you compare a 64MB card
    > from 2002 that was never introduced as a commercial product with a
    > real 1GB card selling in 2007 for $10? Following the dpreview link
    > to their PMA 2002 report shows a 64MB MMC "prototype". Repeat -
    > MMC. Not SD, not CF, but an MMC prototype. And "they" weren't
    > "talking 15 bucks for 64 meg." To be slightly more accurate and to
    > not spin the info. in the direction that supports the bogus premise,
    > the Matrix spokesman said that the cost would be $10 to $15 for a
    > 64MB card and that this price was so low because the cards could be
    > "made far more cheaply than standard Flash storage". From a minor
    > slipup (not catching the year of the PMA 2002 report) we now have
    > more than one person erroneously thinking that the write-once memory
    > must be far more expensive than standard flash RAM. Your
    > "Ridiculous!" was completely correct, but not the way you intended.
    > As has been noted before, the devil is in the details! <g>
    >


    Selling a 64 meg card today for $15 WOULD be ridiculous. Taking a 2002
    report, and representing it as 'new technology' is even more ridiculous.
    It appears that this technology didn't make it to the market.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 1, 2007
    #19
  20. ASAAR

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:53:34 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> They will have to be cheaper than the current line of cards, or there
    >> will be little motivation for their purchase.

    >
    > They probably will be. If you follow dpreview's link to the
    > Sandisk discussion reported by PC Magazine you'll see some of the
    > reasons why Sandisk may succeed in selling them for very low prices.
    >
    > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2098505,00.asp
    >
    >
    >> Does anyone REALLY know how long current flash media will retain their
    >> data is stored in normal room environments? I don't believe I have seen
    >> any information on this, reliable, or otherwise.

    >
    > I haven't either, but based on my own experience of never having
    > any flash media that lost data my instinct is to believe that it's
    > longer than floppies, tape, DVDs and probably most CDs. Also, the
    > main failure mode that has been reported occurs when individual data
    > cells are written to too many times. So if even standard flash
    > memory is used for archival purposes it will avoid being subjected
    > to its known Achilles Heel.
    >
    > Looking at the photo of a small section of the actual chip, and
    > reading "'blows the bit fuses' inside the memory cell" brings to
    > mind fusible link PROMs that IIRC were more reliable than EPROMs, so
    > I'd think that this new flash RAM probably will be very long lived.
    > The 100+ year life claimed by Matrix back in 2002 and by Sandisk in
    > 2007 seems reasonable. Based on a perhaps too close reading of what
    > Sandisk executives said, there's a chance that these cards won't be
    > made in the super large sizes that I'd like to see. They're talking
    > about a product that would be more like "film", and there could be a
    > requirement that this "film" would have to be returned to
    > Walgreen's, Rite-Aid, Wal-Mart, etc. to "develop" the film into its
    > archival state. And then while you're there, they'd be only too
    > happy to make some prints for you. <g> Sandisk said that it their
    > write-once cards are currently being tested in a pilot program with
    > a single retailer. I'd like to know in which country the program
    > has been set up. USA? Japan? Turkmenistan?
    >


    Nothing like using a 1930's marketing concept to rip off consumers, who
    will probably think they are smart for using 'current technology'. I
    don't think I am interested.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 1, 2007
    #20
    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. Renee
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    378
    Dave Martindale
    Oct 27, 2004
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    449
  3. Gig
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    331
  4. Rich

    First P&S that may "may" not be a piece of crap?

    Rich, Jul 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    828
    John Turco
    Aug 7, 2008
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,157
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page