on 4/11/02 11:29 PM, (PowerBooks) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Cameron Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compact Flash RAM success
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] from Bruce Johnson at Apr 11,
2 11:27:10 am
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:54:29 -0700 (PDT
on 4/13/02 12:22 AM, (PowerBooks) at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:29:38 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compact Flash RAM success
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
IBM advertises these things as being faster than flash cards...it's got
a sustained I/O
IBM advertises these things as being faster than flash cards...it's got
a sustained I/O of over 4MB/sec.
Yes, but what is the seek time? That may be more relevant.
average is 12 ms, track to track is 1, full track is 19 ms.
See, I think that's more the issue. While the sustained transfer
Are these real HD's? If so and you use it as VRAM, like I am the flash
memory, it won't even come close speedwise. With the flash memory as VRAM, I
can hardly tell the difference between it and real system RAM, whereas,
using the HD for VRAM, things are _really_ slow, because of the
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:46:29 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compact Flash RAM success
Ken Norris (dialup) wrote:
BTW, 1gb flash cards and PC cards are now available, plus, up to 512mb Ultra
Compact Flash cards with incredibly
