Agreed. Bytes on the head of a pin is the proper perspective. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Jez Cunningham wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> We have to assume there's an error in these figures, but whatever it is
> still seems to leave crazy numbers.
>
> 25MB/s is rather slow, I think even today's cards can beat that (1GB card in
> 40s). So assume they've written a spec that says 25GB/s (1000x faster) - it
> would still take 2 months to download the biggest card.
>
> And 25GB/s is now getting hard to believe - it's what only the best fibre
> optics in the internet backbone can achieve.
>
> I think we'll have to leave this fruitful discussion about how many bytes
> you can get on the head of a pin and let time tell...
>
> cheers
> jez
>
> On 23 February 2010 21:29, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Just like Andrew you're talking content and I'm talking performance.
>> The speed is only 32MB/sec such that read time for a full card at full
>> spec was 150 years. I assumed somewhat slower performance for write and
>> then added some rest time in between photo sessions during one of which
>> I will die before I actually fill it.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> Mike Lazzari wrote:
>>>> Not to worry. It will take at least 1,000 years to fill it.
>>>>
>>> Didn't Bill Gates once make a similar famously inaccurate statement?
>>>
>>> Mike
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|