Pandora 2 specifications and price

[Exophase]

I hope they stay the heck away from micro-SD entirely. That stuff is extremely SLOW and is always seems to be four steps behind full size SD cards in size and cost. If you want a 'bleeding edge' device that runs off of SD based memory - it HAS to have full size SDHC slots capable of high read and write speeds.

I'm just talking about using something for internal storage that the device comes pre-loaded with. If it's something internal it's important that it doesn't take up a lot of board space. This applies regardless of whether or not you put it behind the battery. I'd have to see some kind of wide reaching survey before I believe that it's a lot slower, since there's no physical reason for this to be the case. A quick search shows the costs to be pretty similar. Size wouldn't have to be that large (4GB would probably be sufficient).


Of course I'd still want one or preferably two full sized SD slots available to the user like it is now. I just don't want the thing to ship without any default software, nor do I want users to be encouraged/misdirected to removing that media.

 

[fusion_power]

Actualy, I'm happy with the size of the Pandora, perfect fit for my big hands. ^^


The Pandora Keyboard is already pretty small, I doubt that it's handling will be better if the Pandora 2 is even smaller designed. Or are there so many Pandora Users with small japanese girly hands out there?

Maybe he meant it will be less thick.

OK, could be. I agree that the Pandora 2 could be thinner than Pandora 1...and has less "sharp" edges like Pandora 1 had here and there.

 

[mcobit]

+1 for internal sdhc slot.

 

[slaeshjag]

^ But only if there's still two external slots

 

[Binky]

I think the most important thing is to add some elements of design that don't look like they were invented together by a robot for example, making the back of lid and bottom of base sections out of single sheets of unpainted aluminum, while the inside, front edge and back panel were plastic would look more interesting

 

[2bit]

Well I have already made the decision to buy the first one , but if your going to make a 2nd one then should I hold off until then ?

 

[urisma]

No. The 2nd one wont be available until at least the end of 2013 (craigx said so himself)

 

[Grench]

I hope they stay the heck away from micro-SD entirely. That stuff is extremely SLOW and is always seems to be four steps behind full size SD cards in size and cost. If you want a 'bleeding edge' device that runs off of SD based memory - it HAS to have full size SDHC slots capable of high read and write speeds.

I'm just talking about using something for internal storage that the device comes pre-loaded with. If it's something internal it's important that it doesn't take up a lot of board space. This applies regardless of whether or not you put it behind the battery.

Since the difference in performance (size, speed, cost) is so dramatically different between these two types (microSD vs SDHC) - that extra volume is a small price to pay for the bump up in capabilities - even if the device only ships with the cheapest SD card they can source.

I'd have to see some kind of wide reaching survey before I believe that it's a lot slower, since there's no physical reason for this to be the case.

The best microSD cards I've been able to find are 64GB Class 6 at $70 per card.


http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Mobile-MicroSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B005V7WIA2/ref=sr_1_10?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1341269318&sr=1-10&keywords=128gb+sdhc


The max read rate I've seen a device stat for on these is 13.5 MB/sec and a read of 5.6MB/sec.


The best full size SDHC cards I've been able to find are 128GB Class 10/600X with claims of 45MB/sec write and 90MB/sec reads for $230.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/846997-REG/Delkin_Devices_DDSD600_128GB_128GB_SDXC_Memory_Card.html


I don't have one of those.


I DO have a Lexar SDXC 128GB Class 10, 133X read card and the 400x version. They both max out the Pandora's existing port at 17MB/s reads and holds a sustained 10.5MB/sec writes. The cards are capable of much more than the current Pandora can handle.


I see the capacity differences, the speed differences and the availability differences between micro and full size as night and day.

A quick search shows the costs to be pretty similar.

I don't see that at all. I see full size SDHC cards priced at 2/3 microSDHC prices for the same size - and the microSDHC cards are half as fast. There is no microSDHC equivalent to a 128GB SDHC UHS-I card.

Size wouldn't have to be that large (4GB would probably be sufficient).

For giving the end user a working machine and an installed copy of the OS - yes. But that's about it. I boot from a 5GB partition on a 128GB SDHC card. That isn't all that card is doing.

Of course I'd still want one or preferably two full sized SD slots available to the user like it is now. I just don't want the thing to ship without any default software, nor do I want users to be encouraged/misdirected to removing that media.

The gem here is that if there were a full size internal SDHC slot capable of handling the fastest of cards (USB 3.0 max speeds) - then there isn't a need anymore for the device to have two front facing card slots. We would only need one internal and one surfaced - and no NAND. If there is room for two surfaced - that's cool. If not, I'm not worried about it IF the internal slot is a full sized max speed slot capable of handling whatever card I can find to put in it.


After all, we're talking late 2013 & early 2014. So, my prediction is that there will be 256GB SDHC UHS-II 1500x cards with 100MB/sec writes and 200MB/sec reads hitting the market around that time frame. The Pandora II won't likely ship with an expensive card like that bundled inside it - but it should be able to swap that bad boy in place of whatever cheap card it ships with. At that point the surfaced SDHC slot becomes a device you use to move information on/off of the Pandora rather than using an external USB key.


Would I prefer three full sized SDHC slots with one internal and two exposed? Yes.


Would I be OK with one internal SDHC and one external SDHC? Sure.


Would I be OK with no internal slot or NAND and two external SDHC? OK.


Would I be OK with one internal microSD slot and two exposed SDHC? No. I'd rather do without.


Never mix media types on a device or you wind up with something like this:


http://apj.co.uk/pc110/pt_hw.htm


And yes, I've always wanted an IBM PC-110 but could never justify actually buying one.

 

[Exophase]

Since the difference in performance (size, speed, cost) is so dramatically different between these two types (microSD vs SDHC) - that extra volume is a small price to pay for the bump up in capabilities - even if the device only ships with the cheapest SD card they can source.

I did some cursory benchmark and cost hunting and found that they pretty much perform the same, cost the same, and size.. well, yes, microSD is smaller.. that's good, isn't it?


Think about it for a second, what you're saying makes no sense. The only limitation microSD imposes on SD is size. They have the same number of pins, the same interface (on an electrical and signal level), and they probably use the same NAND chips. You might think that for a given capacity X it costs less to have it on a larger chip instead of a smaller one, but that's the opposite of how ICs work - for a given process node you pay proportionately to how large it is. And there's no reason the big SDs would use an older process, because usually the base costs of the process are outweighed by the volume savings due to being able to put more on the same wafer. The big SDs probably use the smallest NAND chips they can too.


And since microSD cards are probably more common now and are made up of slightly less raw material overall (in terms of PCB and packaging) they'd have a cost advantage.


The only advantage for SD is that it has a higher maximum capacity. Since we're talking about internal storage that's included with the unit this is completely moot, and so is your comparisons with these 64GB and 128GB SD cards - unless you somehow think OPT should put one inside your Pandora (this is just beyond ridiculous).


So it's pointless to even look at anything beyond 32GB (and even that..) And, yeah:


http://www.amazon.co...ds=32GB microSD


http://www.amazon.co...eywords=32GB SD


Class 10 is harder to find (yes, they're there), but honestly, OPT shouldn't really waste money on that either. We're talking about something for booting default stuff - if you have something performance sensitive put it on another card.

For giving the end user a working machine and an installed copy of the OS - yes. But that's about it. I boot from a 5GB partition on a 128GB SDHC card. That isn't all that card is doing.

Great, so then you can go from wasting the device's onboard NAND to wasting the device's builtin microSD. I'm sure many others would appreciate having a default plus fallback that's always there, like they probably do now. Or you think everyone boots off of SD?

The gem here is that if there were a full size internal SDHC slot capable of handling the fastest of cards (USB 3.0 max speeds) - then there isn't a need anymore for the device to have two front facing card slots.

We would only need one internal and one surfaced - and no NAND. If there is room for two surfaced - that's cool. If not, I'm not worried about it IF the internal slot is a full sized max speed slot capable of handling whatever card I can find to put in it.

You see no point in having two external SD cards if one of them is deliberately difficult to access, requiring anything from removing the battery to disassembling the unit? I obviously disagree! There's a reason people like having two SD cards now even though they also have NAND.. with an internal SD almost no one would be removing it. But it'd be a big convenience to OPT.

After all, we're talking late 2013 & early 2014. So, my prediction is that there will be 256GB SDHC UHS-II 1500x cards with 100MB/sec writes and 200MB/sec reads hitting the market around that time frame. The Pandora II won't likely ship with an expensive card like that bundled inside it - but it should be able to swap that bad boy in place of whatever cheap card it ships with. At that point the surfaced SDHC slot becomes a device you use to move information on/off of the Pandora rather than using an external USB key.

But if you have two external ones what do you really care?

Would I prefer three full sized SDHC slots with one internal and two exposed? Yes.
Would I be OK with one internal SDHC and one external SDHC? Sure.


Would I be OK with no internal slot or NAND and two external SDHC? OK.


Would I be OK with one internal microSD slot and two exposed SDHC? No. I'd rather do without.


Never mix media types on a device or you wind up with something like this:


http://apj.co.uk/pc110/pt_hw.htm


And yes, I've always wanted an IBM PC-110 but could never justify actually buying one.

Your stance makes zero sense whatsoever. Please make some kind of convincing argument that having an internal microSD slot that replaces the NAND in the current design is such a bad idea it's worse than having nothing replace it at all. Because it "mixes media types" (as if microSD and SD are really altogether different media)? That's like saying Pandora is bad for having both mini-USB and full USB ports..

 

[Stephane Hockenhull]

I think 1x internal microSD, 2x external full SD would be great, especially if it means we can get extra RAM instead of RAM+flash on the PoP.


just make it so you can also boot from one of front slots if the internal microSD isn't present or non-bootable.


this way people on a budget can use a normal SD for OS, and later upgrade to a microSD when they can afford it.


besides, between the time someone pay for his P2 and actually receive it he'll have time to put money aside for a microSD card, fully paid his car, and halfway thru his house mortgage.

 

[slaeshjag]

[ramble about microSD vs. Fullsize]

Where you live, so might be the case. But not here at least.


EDIT: Woah, SD-card prices has dropped a lot since last time I checked :blink:


Difference doesn't seem to be more than 10-20% now.


But full-size is a must for removable, even if microSD where to be cheaper.

 

[Exophase]

Where you live, so might be the case. But not here at least.

What might not be the case? Cost being similar? I got some comparisons for the UK and they were about the same too...

 

[slaeshjag]

My numbers where old. Last time I checked, µSD-cards where *at least* twice as expensive with worse performance. That doesn't seem to be the xase anymore.

 

[Grench]

Since the difference in performance (size, speed, cost) is so dramatically different between these two types (microSD vs SDHC) - that extra volume is a small price to pay for the bump up in capabilities - even if the device only ships with the cheapest SD card they can source.

I did some cursory benchmark and cost hunting and found that they pretty much perform the same, cost the same, and size.. well, yes, microSD is smaller.. that's good, isn't it?

Where are you finding microSDHC cards capable of 90MB/sec reads and 45MB/sec writes?


I have yet to have seen a microSDHC that can keep up with a same era SDHC card.

Think about it for a second, what you're saying makes no sense. The only limitation microSD imposes on SD is size. They have the same number of pins, the same interface (on an electrical and signal level), and they probably use the same NAND chips. You might think that for a given capacity X it costs less to have it on a larger chip instead of a smaller one, but that's the opposite of how ICs work - for a given process node you pay proportionately to how large it is. And there's no reason the big SDs would use an older process, because usually the base costs of the process are outweighed by the volume savings due to being able to put more on the same wafer. The big SDs probably use the smallest NAND chips they can too.

And since microSD cards are probably more common now and are made up of slightly less raw material overall (in terms of PCB and packaging) they'd have a cost advantage.


The only advantage for SD is that it has a higher maximum capacity.

Higher maximum capacity IS performance. Or do you like swapping cards?

Since we're talking about internal storage that's included with the unit this is completely moot, and so is your comparisons with these 64GB and 128GB SD cards - unless you somehow think OPT should put one inside your Pandora (this is just beyond ridiculous).

Sorry, but you're missing the point. I don't care one bit what the capacity of the card OpenPandora includes with the unit is. Just so long as I can pull it out, drop in the latest greatest largest card that I can afford. This isn't about what OpenPandora ships with it - that attitude says we should all be using floppy drives on our PC's because that's what IBM shipped them with.

So it's pointless to even look at anything beyond 32GB (and even that..)

Next you're going to say something to the effect that, '640K should be enough for anybody'. Again, entirely missing the point. Multi-partition a large card INSIDE the device as OSboot, swap, programs, media (music & movies). Load it with stuff you don't plan to swap out. The other slot(s) then become a means to add more stuff to the internal card - or additional capacity.

And, yeah:

http://www.amazon.co...ds=32GB microSD


http://www.amazon.co...eywords=32GB SD


Class 10 is harder to find (yes, they're there), but honestly, OPT shouldn't really waste money on that either. We're talking about something for booting default stuff - if you have something performance sensitive put it on another card.

The boot device doesn't have to be used as JUST a boot device. Your brain is stuck on NAND, and by comparison to modern SDHC cards on a USB 3.0 interface, NAND is slow.


You DO realize that those two cards you listed are REALLY old and really really SLOW, right?


The microSDHC you listed is a Class 2. That means it is rated to write at 2MB/sec. It -might- read at 6MB/sec or so.


The SDHC you listed is a Class 4 and rated to be TWICE as fast writing as the Class 2 you listed. It -might- read at 12MB/sec or so.


The SDHC cards I'm talking about are rated to write at 45MB/sec and read at 90MB/sec. We're in entirely different worlds of performance.

For giving the end user a working machine and an installed copy of the OS - yes. But that's about it. I boot from a 5GB partition on a 128GB SDHC card. That isn't all that card is doing.

Great, so then you can go from wasting the device's onboard NAND to wasting the device's builtin microSD. I'm sure many others would appreciate having a default plus fallback that's always there, like they probably do now. Or you think everyone boots off of SD?

That IS kind of the point to this discussion - that everyone WILL boot off of SD media. The slot they're booting off of may as well have the capabilities for speed and capacity - and microSD fails on both accounts.

The gem here is that if there were a full size internal SDHC slot capable of handling the fastest of cards (USB 3.0 max speeds) - then there isn't a need anymore for the device to have two front facing card slots.

We would only need one internal and one surfaced - and no NAND. If there is room for two surfaced - that's cool. If not, I'm not worried about it IF the internal slot is a full sized max speed slot capable of handling whatever card I can find to put in it.

You see no point in having two external SD cards if one of them is deliberately difficult to access, requiring anything from removing the battery to disassembling the unit? I obviously disagree! There's a reason people like having two SD cards now even though they also have NAND.. with an internal SD almost no one would be removing it. But it'd be a big convenience to OPT.

Again, "IF the internal slot is FULL SIZED MAX SPEED SLOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING WHATEVER CARD I CAN FIND TO PUT IN IT."


Sorry 'bout the caps, but you clearly missed that part the first time. If it's a microSD internal - that's about worthless for anything but holding a spare copy of the OS and data you don't plan to access regularly. I'd 'bout have to cry over what could have been while trying to boot from that junk while knowing that with one minor decision they could have made it a real card port and cut my boot times to 1/4 what they would be on microSD.

After all, we're talking late 2013 & early 2014. So, my prediction is that there will be 256GB SDHC UHS-II 1500x cards with 100MB/sec writes and 200MB/sec reads hitting the market around that time frame. The Pandora II won't likely ship with an expensive card like that bundled inside it - but it should be able to swap that bad boy in place of whatever cheap card it ships with. At that point the surfaced SDHC slot becomes a device you use to move information on/off of the Pandora rather than using an external USB key.

But if you have two external ones what do you really care?

Because I can't stand to have intentionally crippled hardware. As you said, SD and microSD are identical in pins, etc - the BIG difference is in performance, price and capacity. Those are BIG differences to me. Putting a microSD slot in a Pandora is placing form over function. I'd rather have a hump in the back of the Pandora 2 than a microSD slot with all of the functional loss that comes with it.

Would I prefer three full sized SDHC slots with one internal and two exposed? Yes.
Would I be OK with one internal SDHC and one external SDHC? Sure.


Would I be OK with no internal slot or NAND and two external SDHC? OK.


Would I be OK with one internal microSD slot and two exposed SDHC? No. I'd rather do without.


Never mix media types on a device or you wind up with something like this:


http://apj.co.uk/pc110/pt_hw.htm


And yes, I've always wanted an IBM PC-110 but could never justify actually buying one.

Your stance makes zero sense whatsoever. Please make some kind of convincing argument that having an internal microSD slot that replaces the NAND in the current design is such a bad idea it's worse than having nothing replace it at all. Because it "mixes media types" (as if microSD and SD are really altogether different media)? That's like saying Pandora is bad for having both mini-USB and full USB ports..

My stance that I don't want a compromised port in a no-compromise device makes no sense?


I would rather have NO replacement for the internal NAND and two full size USB 3.0 speed SDHC compliant slots than to have an additional microSD slot hidden someplace.


I don't want to mess with two card types on one device.


I don't want a slower alternative stuck into the device when all the bits are there for an ultimate device.


I would like to either have a full sized full USB 3.0 speed SDHC slot or not waste the space that a microSD card would consume - no matter how small that may be. MicroSD is compromise-ware. It always has been.


Bottom line: There is no MicroSD card that can keep up with the top of the line SDHC cards in GB, GB/sec and $/GB.

 

[_wb_]

The read speed of this internal card will be the most important thing, not just for booting but also every time a program or library gets loaded, the read speed will matter. So the card should be as fast as possible, even the default one the OPT will include. I would prefer one internal full speed SDXC slot, and one external. No need to add a second external slot - it would be nice, but I probably would not use it so it would just gather dust.

 

[Foxgod]

Since the difference in performance (size, speed, cost) is so dramatically different between these two types (microSD vs SDHC) - that extra volume is a small price to pay for the bump up in capabilities - even if the device only ships with the cheapest SD card they can source.

I did some cursory benchmark and cost hunting and found that they pretty much perform the same, cost the same, and size.. well, yes, microSD is smaller.. that's good, isn't it?

Where are you finding microSDHC cards capable of 90MB/sec reads and 45MB/sec writes?


I have yet to have seen a microSDHC that can keep up with a same era SDHC card.

Think about it for a second, what you're saying makes no sense. The only limitation microSD imposes on SD is size. They have the same number of pins, the same interface (on an electrical and signal level), and they probably use the same NAND chips. You might think that for a given capacity X it costs less to have it on a larger chip instead of a smaller one, but that's the opposite of how ICs work - for a given process node you pay proportionately to how large it is. And there's no reason the big SDs would use an older process, because usually the base costs of the process are outweighed by the volume savings due to being able to put more on the same wafer. The big SDs probably use the smallest NAND chips they can too.

And since microSD cards are probably more common now and are made up of slightly less raw material overall (in terms of PCB and packaging) they'd have a cost advantage.


The only advantage for SD is that it has a higher maximum capacity.

Higher maximum capacity IS performance. Or do you like swapping cards?

Since we're talking about internal storage that's included with the unit this is completely moot, and so is your comparisons with these 64GB and 128GB SD cards - unless you somehow think OPT should put one inside your Pandora (this is just beyond ridiculous).

Sorry, but you're missing the point. I don't care one bit what the capacity of the card OpenPandora includes with the unit is. Just so long as I can pull it out, drop in the latest greatest largest card that I can afford. This isn't about what OpenPandora ships with it - that attitude says we should all be using floppy drives on our PC's because that's what IBM shipped them with.

So it's pointless to even look at anything beyond 32GB (and even that..)

Next you're going to say something to the effect that, '640K should be enough for anybody'. Again, entirely missing the point. Multi-partition a large card INSIDE the device as OSboot, swap, programs, media (music & movies). Load it with stuff you don't plan to swap out. The other slot(s) then become a means to add more stuff to the internal card - or additional capacity.

And, yeah:

http://www.amazon.co...ds=32GB microSD


http://www.amazon.co...eywords=32GB SD


Class 10 is harder to find (yes, they're there), but honestly, OPT shouldn't really waste money on that either. We're talking about something for booting default stuff - if you have something performance sensitive put it on another card.

The boot device doesn't have to be used as JUST a boot device. Your brain is stuck on NAND, and by comparison to modern SDHC cards on a USB 3.0 interface, NAND is slow.


You DO realize that those two cards you listed are REALLY old and really really SLOW, right?


The microSDHC you listed is a Class 2. That means it is rated to write at 2MB/sec. It -might- read at 6MB/sec or so.


The SDHC you listed is a Class 4 and rated to be TWICE as fast writing as the Class 2 you listed. It -might- read at 12MB/sec or so.


The SDHC cards I'm talking about are rated to write at 45MB/sec and read at 90MB/sec. We're in entirely different worlds of performance.

For giving the end user a working machine and an installed copy of the OS - yes. But that's about it. I boot from a 5GB partition on a 128GB SDHC card. That isn't all that card is doing.

Great, so then you can go from wasting the device's onboard NAND to wasting the device's builtin microSD. I'm sure many others would appreciate having a default plus fallback that's always there, like they probably do now. Or you think everyone boots off of SD?

That IS kind of the point to this discussion - that everyone WILL boot off of SD media. The slot they're booting off of may as well have the capabilities for speed and capacity - and microSD fails on both accounts.

The gem here is that if there were a full size internal SDHC slot capable of handling the fastest of cards (USB 3.0 max speeds) - then there isn't a need anymore for the device to have two front facing card slots.

We would only need one internal and one surfaced - and no NAND. If there is room for two surfaced - that's cool. If not, I'm not worried about it IF the internal slot is a full sized max speed slot capable of handling whatever card I can find to put in it.

You see no point in having two external SD cards if one of them is deliberately difficult to access, requiring anything from removing the battery to disassembling the unit? I obviously disagree! There's a reason people like having two SD cards now even though they also have NAND.. with an internal SD almost no one would be removing it. But it'd be a big convenience to OPT.

Again, "IF the internal slot is FULL SIZED MAX SPEED SLOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING WHATEVER CARD I CAN FIND TO PUT IN IT."


Sorry 'bout the caps, but you clearly missed that part the first time. If it's a microSD internal - that's about worthless for anything but holding a spare copy of the OS and data you don't plan to access regularly. I'd 'bout have to cry over what could have been while trying to boot from that junk while knowing that with one minor decision they could have made it a real card port and cut my boot times to 1/4 what they would be on microSD.

After all, we're talking late 2013 & early 2014. So, my prediction is that there will be 256GB SDHC UHS-II 1500x cards with 100MB/sec writes and 200MB/sec reads hitting the market around that time frame. The Pandora II won't likely ship with an expensive card like that bundled inside it - but it should be able to swap that bad boy in place of whatever cheap card it ships with. At that point the surfaced SDHC slot becomes a device you use to move information on/off of the Pandora rather than using an external USB key.

But if you have two external ones what do you really care?

Because I can't stand to have intentionally crippled hardware. As you said, SD and microSD are identical in pins, etc - the BIG difference is in performance, price and capacity. Those are BIG differences to me. Putting a microSD slot in a Pandora is placing form over function. I'd rather have a hump in the back of the Pandora 2 than a microSD slot with all of the functional loss that comes with it.

Would I prefer three full sized SDHC slots with one internal and two exposed? Yes.
Would I be OK with one internal SDHC and one external SDHC? Sure.


Would I be OK with no internal slot or NAND and two external SDHC? OK.


Would I be OK with one internal microSD slot and two exposed SDHC? No. I'd rather do without.


Never mix media types on a device or you wind up with something like this:


http://apj.co.uk/pc110/pt_hw.htm


And yes, I've always wanted an IBM PC-110 but could never justify actually buying one.

Your stance makes zero sense whatsoever. Please make some kind of convincing argument that having an internal microSD slot that replaces the NAND in the current design is such a bad idea it's worse than having nothing replace it at all. Because it "mixes media types" (as if microSD and SD are really altogether different media)? That's like saying Pandora is bad for having both mini-USB and full USB ports..

My stance that I don't want a compromised port in a no-compromise device makes no sense?


I would rather have NO replacement for the internal NAND and two full size USB 3.0 speed SDHC compliant slots than to have an additional microSD slot hidden someplace.


I don't want to mess with two card types on one device.


I don't want a slower alternative stuck into the device when all the bits are there for an ultimate device.


I would like to either have a full sized full USB 3.0 speed SDHC slot or not waste the space that a microSD card would consume - no matter how small that may be. MicroSD is compromise-ware. It always has been.


Bottom line: There is no MicroSD card that can keep up with the top of the line SDHC cards in GB, GB/sec and $/GB.

I just had to quote this, long unreadable quotes ftw!

 

[Nintendo]

tl;dr

 

[Grench]

I just had to quote this, long unreadable quotes ftw!

Did I mess up the quote formatting somewhere?

 

[Exophase]

Where are you finding microSDHC cards capable of 90MB/sec reads and 45MB/sec writes?
I have yet to have seen a microSDHC that can keep up with a same era SDHC card.

http://www.gottabemo...-microsd-cards/


Of course you're assuming the SoC will have a fast enough SD interface to benefit from this. Or worse, you're assuming that if it doesn't it'll have USB 3.0 and OPT will put in an external SD chip just to get higher performance..

Higher maximum capacity IS performance. Or do you like swapping cards?

We have a very different idea of what "performance" of an SD card means then! Why did you ignore everything else I said? Do you have a good rationale for why microSD has a natural disadvantage in anything but maximum capacity? Can you actually put forth some evidence that they're slower and more expensive, or will you just keep repeating it ad nauseam?


But no, I don't like swapping cards. I'm referring to an internal card that most people would not want to replace, instead preferring to use one of the one or two SD slots in the front.

Sorry, but you're missing the point. I don't care one bit what the capacity of the card OpenPandora includes with the unit is. Just so long as I can pull it out, drop in the latest greatest largest card that I can afford. This isn't about what OpenPandora ships with it - that attitude says we should all be using floppy drives on our PC's because that's what IBM shipped them with.

And I don't care an awful lot about what YOU personally demand. I'm more interested in OPT going with what benefits the majority of its buyers. This mentality that everything that CAN be changed must be accommodated to support the best possible is odd to me, especially if you'd be okay with something that couldn't be changed instead. Are you unhappy with your motherboard manufacturers for including EEPROM sockets for their BIOSes, yet limiting them to a pretty paltry size?

Next you're going to say something to the effect that, '640K should be enough for anybody'. Again, entirely missing the point. Multi-partition a large card INSIDE the device as OSboot, swap, programs, media (music & movies). Load it with stuff you don't plan to swap out. The other slot(s) then become a means to add more stuff to the internal card - or additional capacity.

No, I'm pretty sure what I'm saying is not "640K should be enough for anybody." I am not claiming that an internal SD is all the storage anyone would need.


How do other slots become a means to add more stuff the internal card? Whatever, that's probably not what you meant. Your argument may as well extend to OPT ripping you off for not giving you three external SD slots. Yes, making an internal one microSD would somewhat limit maximum capacity for the tiny minority who would consider maxing out all three slots. But you'd prefer to not have the internal slot at all, which would surely decrease maximum capacity further!

The boot device doesn't have to be used as JUST a boot device. Your brain is stuck on NAND, and by comparison to modern SDHC cards on a USB 3.0 interface, NAND is slow.

I'm saying it should be useful as a boot medium at a minimum. If the user wants to use it for other things that's their prerogative, but it doesn't need to be geared to more when there are other slots for that. NAND doesn't have to JUST be used for anything either, and your "NAND is slow" claim is incredibly silly. What do you think is in SD cards? SD is just NAND with a narrow interface..

You DO realize that those two cards you listed are REALLY old and really really SLOW, right?

Okay, show me some modern objective comparisons in pricing and performance between SD and microSD. And please use real benchmarks, with an emphasis on things like random read speed, since bandwidth isn't going to be the most important factor for everyone all of the time (especially if they're using something primarily as a boot volume)

That IS kind of the point to this discussion - that everyone WILL boot off of SD media. The slot they're booting off of may as well have the capabilities for speed and capacity - and microSD fails on both accounts.

Again, "IF the internal slot is FULL SIZED MAX SPEED SLOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING WHATEVER CARD I CAN FIND TO PUT IN IT."


Sorry 'bout the caps, but you clearly missed that part the first time. If it's a microSD internal - that's about worthless for anything but holding a spare copy of the OS and data you don't plan to access regularly. I'd 'bout have to cry over what could have been while trying to boot from that junk while knowing that with one minor decision they could have made it a real card port and cut my boot times to 1/4 what they would be on microSD.

What you somehow can't seem to grasp is that PCB space is NOT NEGLIGIBLE. They may have enough room to put an internal microSD and not enough room for a full sized one, this is a huge difference (and if they're anything as cramped as they currently are I can easily see this happening). So what you'd be crying over is what they chose to do over what they could not do. But I'm sure you'd still be crying.

Because I can't stand to have intentionally crippled hardware. As you said, SD and microSD are identical in pins, etc - the BIG difference is in performance, price and capacity. Those are BIG differences to me. Putting a microSD slot in a Pandora is placing form over function. I'd rather have a hump in the back of the Pandora 2 than a microSD slot with all of the functional loss that comes with it.

So you'd rather have nothing at all than something that you see as inferior to what you could have had. That's a completely irrational standpoint and I hope it doesn't extend to other areas of your life.

IMy stance that I don't want a compromised port in a no-compromise device makes no sense?

Yes, no sense at all. Putting that aside, do you really think any piece of hardware will be "no-compromise"? OPT could try to include a Compact Flash drive, which allows for up to 166MB/s bandwidth (with current cards really rated at 100MB/s write performance, 128MB large). That'd include obvious compromises. SD portends other obvious compromises. Every decision involves compromise.

I would rather have NO replacement for the internal NAND and two full size USB 3.0 speed SDHC compliant slots than to have an additional microSD slot hidden someplace.

And even if you phrase something to be mutually exclusive when it isn't it's still irrational.


While YOU might be offended to having a microSD slot internally the alternative is shipping with no default data at all and instead (at best) taking up one of the user accessible slots for this purpose. I'm sure at least some buyers would appreciate having something default and internal even if it doesn't have the same potential for upgrade.

I don't want to mess with two card types on one device.

Then you COULD just leave the internal one alone, but I guess that'd be too hard for you to deal with too?

 

[Stephane Hockenhull]

Because I can't stand to have intentionally crippled hardware. As you said, SD and microSD are identical in pins, etc - the BIG difference is in performance, price and capacity. Those are BIG differences to me. Putting a microSD slot in a Pandora is placing form over function. I'd rather have a hump in the back of the Pandora 2 than a microSD slot with all of the functional loss that comes with it.


I would rather have NO replacement for the internal NAND and two full size USB 3.0 speed SDHC compliant slots than to have an additional microSD slot hidden someplace.

then just don't use the would-be internal hidden microSD slot and stop crying.


there's no functional loss to adding something.


you're completely irrational.

I don't want to mess with two card types on one device.

OMG noooooooooo! two different things ?!?!? look out! your head's going to explode!!


I guess the Pandora having internal NAND AND SD cards for storage as well as full size USB host AND USB OTG AND BlueTooth for external devices must really be too much for you.


that is FIVE different hardware thingnies!!!


and the option of LCD and TV-OUT as displays must also be very painful to deal with!


OMG OMG OMG the first OpenPandora has over 4096 different usage combinations possible!!!


QUICK! CALL AN AMBULANCE!!


OH SH*T, I completely forgot about using either speakers or headphones!!!


TOO MUCH CHOICE!!!!!


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


EVERYONE'S GONNA DIE!!