Pandora with microSD - will you buy it?

[Grench]

Exactly the point I've been trying to make.

No, I mean you originally said there were two sides: those that wanted two full sized high speed SD slots, and those that didn't. I pointed out that there weren't really these two positions, that the only person who apparently doesn't want two full sized SD slots is Craig, and that the argument revolved around the theoretical internal SD boot card. You responded with a third choice of an external full sized SD slot and an internal full sized SD slot which is still two full sized SD slots. Your original statement about there being "several" people that have vocal opinions opposed to having two full sized SD slots is extremely misleading.

[evil]


Misleading? You're the one now talking about THREE SD card slots after finally agreeing that we simply needed two. Sheesh.


There WERE "several people" who promoted a strictly microSD based device - it was not just CraigIX. Or were you making the assumption that this was all about YOU again?[/evil]


Reality was that I WAS referencing CraigIX and a few others who were proponents of a strictly microSD based device. How you re-interpret that to fit your own image of me - that's up to you. I offered Jebe a way to NOT reopen this argument - and suggested reading up on the history to prevent it from all being re-hashed.


But you REALLY want to go there AGAIN? OK.


microSD is 1/2 the capacity and 1/2 the speed of full sized SD at any level of fabrication technology.


It always has been.


It always will be. Any claim of 'change' in this pattern needs solid proof.


It is simply a factor of device volume. Over twice the space = twice the features plus room for a more advanced on-card controller.


For those reasons it makes a second class media to use as boot, swap or program launching.


There have been no examples of any exceptions to the above.


The purpose of an internal media slot is to boot the device and host the /swap file. microSD is ill suited to this task.


-I- would rather have an internal full sized SDXC slot and a single external full sized SDXC slot than a three slot microSD based device.


You miss the point and seem to want to argue that 'it won't be so bad so long as we have two full sized SDXC slots'. THAT isn't the question. The question is how can we have a viable device with a non-removable card slot, two full sized SD slots and not increase the dimensions much over a 3 slot microSD based device that CraigIX claims is 'the future'.


Exophase wants me to predict the future and prove it to them with 100% technical accuracy in a dreamer's thread (Pandora 2 spam). Sorry - no way to do that. Still they insist that they see these invisible patterns of microSD catching up to SD in speed and capacity. It hasn't happened. microSD can seem to get there in speed - at 1/8th the capacity OR get to 1/2 the capacity.


bismuthdrummer doesn't actually have anything constructive to add - but wants to jump on the dog pile and see if he can sink his teeth into anyone.


Jebe was simply expressing the utter shock and dismay that some of us felt when we found out that CraigIX was considering axing full sized SD slots from the future Pandora 2. I don't blame Jebe for asking the question. Calling me names after I suggested a way to clarify this - that's rather annoying.


Does that about sum it up for everyone?

And exactly how are either of you contributing anything constructive to any conversation with those posts?

Clarification of misinformation is always constructive in some way.

At what point is calling other participants names (Jebe) or making hyper sarcastic comments (bismuthdrummer) constructive clarification of anything? If you want to maintain your do gooder image, you might want to double check what side of that one you're on.

 

[Exophase]

There WERE "several people" who promoted a strictly microSD based device - it was not just CraigIX. Or were you making the assumption that this was all about YOU again?

Several? Name one..

 

[Grench]

There WERE "several people" who promoted a strictly microSD based device - it was not just CraigIX. Or were you making the assumption that this was all about YOU again?

Several? Name one..

urisma. Post #12 in this thread. That is as far as I dug since you only requested one.

 

[Exophase]

urisma. Post #12 in this thread. That is as far as I dug since you only requested one.

And even that's really pushing it, seeing how he started out by saying that he doesn't understand what the big deal is about SD size. I can hardly call that promoting an all microSD device, more that it might be mildly more convenient for his personal circumstances.


Got any others?


And since we are opening this up and you reasserted your claim, I'd like to hear a reasonable technical explanation for why microSD must trade speed for capacity. I believe you said that it was because they must use larger controllers. Please either a) show some evidence for this (such as a PCB shot that shows that they're, well, using larger controllers) or B) a technical explanation (why the SD controller at that size would be constrained by that data rate and minimal level of overhead when chips that size can handle far higher throughput.. actually, an explanation of how making it bigger would increase throughput would be good)

 

[bismuthdrummer]

bismuthdrummer doesn't actually have anything constructive to add - but wants to jump on the dog pile and see if he can sink his teeth into anyone.

I'm trying to get you to agree on some simple mathematical analysis, can't be constructive with you until that happens I'm afraid. I did try privately as well, but you lied about my pm and ignored my point so here we are again. Sorry you take it personally. If you don't like my writing style then ignore my posts.


I don't have this problem with anyone else, so you're wrong yet again, sir.

 

[Grench]

urisma. Post #12 in this thread. That is as far as I dug since you only requested one.

And even that's really pushing it, seeing how he started out by saying that he doesn't understand what the big deal is about SD size. I can hardly call that promoting an all microSD device, more that it might be mildly more convenient for his personal circumstances.


Got any others?

I, for one, am a fan of only having microSD cards

I think he made himself quite clear. You made a rule and challenged me to find the exception. I met the challenge. You don't get to change the rules when you loose your own challenge. You now hold the burden of proof.

MicroSD is great technology but also a profound demonstration of the lower bound on size.


...


I would like microSD only for the internal slot as proposed by Exophase. The other two cards need to be there and need to be full-sized SD.

Here we have a clear misconception continuation based on Exophase's inability to understand the actual choice I'm presenting.


Do you want a device with ONLY 3 microSD slots with one internalized OR a device with ONLY 2 SD slots with one internalized.


THAT is the actual choice here. ASSUMING that you're going to get two full sized SD slots AND a microSD slot - an increase in the SD slot footprint over the existing Pandora is rather silly when the device maker is claiming it will be microSD only in order to make it smaller.

And since we are opening this up and you reasserted your claim, I'd like to hear a reasonable technical explanation for why microSD must trade speed for capacity. I believe you said that it was because they must use larger controllers. Please either a) show some evidence for this (such as a PCB shot that shows that they're, well, using larger controllers) or B) a technical explanation (why the SD controller at that size would be constrained by that data rate and minimal level of overhead when chips that size can handle far higher throughput.. actually, an explanation of how making it bigger would increase throughput would be good)

It isn't simply the size of the controller at issue.


Option 1 Simple Density Limits: You can fit nearly three microSD card's worth of features onto a full sized SD card. It can use a larger lithographic process and still double the on card memory. See the initial 128GB SDXC cards. Not a lot faster - but huge.


Option 2 Speed: Full sized SD has room to put higher density chips with additional controller features to stripe over those chips. See the current generation of SD cards - 128GB huge and 90MB/sec. Similar technology level microSD is 16GB and 90MB/sec.


It is it's ability to treat the memory blobs as individual units - essentially RAID 0 disks that requires a more advanced controller. A microSD card can suffice with one memory blob - call it what you will. One unit with an integrated controller. A full sized SD card can take that same blob twice over AND add a controller to stripe the two blobs resulting in double size and nearly double speed while using the same level of technology (feature resolution). Or it could simply use a larger blob.


microSD can only catch SD in capacity when process shrinks allow it to.


microSD can only catch SD in speed when it sacrifices capacity to allow for the stripe (RAID) controller that allows for treating the memory units on the card as individual disks. (Sandforce type.)


The added physical volume in SD cards is well used - and results in faster and higher capacity cards. It has always been that way. As far as I can tell it always will.


I proved you wrong. Now it's your turn. Prove me wrong.

 

[Grench]

bismuthdrummer doesn't actually have anything constructive to add - but wants to jump on the dog pile and see if he can sink his teeth into anyone.

I'm trying to get you to agree on some simple mathematical analysis, can't be constructive until that happens I'm afraid. I did try privately as well, but you lied about my pm so here we are again. Sorry you take it personally. If you don't like my writing style then ignore my posts.


I don't have this problem with anyone else, so you're wrong yet again, sir.

Please show me what constructive thing you have added to this conversation about microSD and SD cards and a microSD vs an SD based Pandora 2? Do you have anything on topic to add?

 

[bismuthdrummer]

Please show me what constructive thing you have added to this conversation about microSD and SD cards and a microSD vs an SD based Pandora 2? Do you have anything on topic to add?

Yes, the winning vote in your poll so far is 1 internal microSD slot + 2 full-size SD slots.


Please agree.


After you agree, we can discuss the merits and substance of this fact, and its statistical (non/) relevance.

 

[Exophase]

I think he made himself quite clear. You made a rule and challenged me to find the exception. I met the challenge. You don't get to change the rules when you loose your own challenge. You now hold the burden of proof.

Nice job posting it without the rest of the context, but it'd be a lot more effective if you did it before I already addressed what he said and why I don't consider "I'm a fan" to mean that he's promoting it when he just prior said the size shouldn't be an issue at all. So the burden of proof is on me.. you mean your original claim that there were several is something you no longer need to defend because I only asked you for one? I'll give you passing of your first challenge, now I'm giving you a new one, or would you prefer to just admit that you can't name several? How exactly do you want your game this time?

Here we have a clear misconception continuation based on Exophase's inability to understand the actual choice I'm presenting.

You're calling into question my ability to understand something based on something HE said? Gee, thanks Grench. But no, I'm pretty sure I haven't misunderstood anything, please don't make claims like this about me without actually addressing anything I've said.

Option 1 Simple Density Limits: You can fit nearly three microSD card's worth of features onto a full sized SD card. It can use a larger lithographic process and still double the on card memory. See the initial 128GB SDXC cards. Not a lot faster - but huge.

You said that microSD can offer 1/2 the capacity if slow and 1/8 the capacity if fast. This statement isn't relevant.

Option 2 Speed: Full sized SD has room to put higher density chips with additional controller features to stripe over those chips. See the current generation of SD cards - 128GB huge and 90MB/sec. Similar technology level microSD is 16GB and 90MB/sec.

It is it's ability to treat the memory blobs as individual units - essentially RAID 0 disks that requires a more advanced controller. A microSD card can suffice with one memory blob - call it what you will. One unit with an integrated controller. A full sized SD card can take that same blob twice over AND add a controller to stripe the two blobs resulting in double size and nearly double speed while using the same level of technology (feature resolution). Or it could simply use a larger blob.


microSD can only catch SD in capacity when process shrinks allow it to.


microSD can only catch SD in speed when it sacrifices capacity to allow for the stripe (RAID) controller that allows for treating the memory units on the card as individual disks. (Sandforce type.)


The added physical volume in SD cards is well used - and results in faster and higher capacity cards. It has always been that way. As far as I can tell it always will.


I proved you wrong. Now it's your turn. Prove me wrong.

I thought you said there was more to it than the size of the controller.


The problem here is that somehow asserting something as true somehow constitutes as proof for you. You have to actually either show that the controller is larger or give a technical argument that a controller the fits in microSD is incapable of handling any 90MB/s arrangement with current technology while accommodating > 16GB capacities. Your claims are merely conjecture. That doesn't make them wrong, but you can't just blindly proclaim them to be fact.


You're using the current lack of 32GB+ 90MB/s cards as evidence that it can't be done. Here's another possibility: the market for 16GB $99 high speed cards is much larger than the market for 32GB $199 high speed cards and Sandisk doesn't yet feel like investing in it.

 

[Grench]

Please show me what constructive thing you have added to this conversation about microSD and SD cards and a microSD vs an SD based Pandora 2? Do you have anything on topic to add?

Yes, the winning vote in your poll so far is 1 internal microSD slot + 2 full-size SD slots.


Please agree.


After you agree, we can discuss the merits and substance of this fact, and its statistical (non/) relevance.

To have 'won' my poll would have had to been asking the respondents to pick their favorite. Instead it asked them to select all options that they found to be acceptable.


Of any single option, one microSD and 2 full sized SD slots is the most common acceptable outcome - at 24.52% of respondents finding it to be an 'acceptable' option. Considering it is a 'best of both worlds' result - it isn't surprising.


However, I don't consider 24.52% of people finding a result 'acceptable' to be 'winning'.


If examined closely though - ANY option with 2 full sized SD slots handily beats any option without 2 full sized SD slots.


I answered your demand for information.


Now, what have YOU added of actual constructive value to this thread OR the other one in question?

 

[WizardStan]

[evil]


Misleading? You're the one now talking about THREE SD card slots after finally agreeing that we simply needed two. Sheesh.

Yeah, my mistake. Sorry, I oversimplfied.

There WERE "several people" who promoted a strictly microSD based device - it was not just CraigIX. Or were you making the assumption that this was all about YOU again?[/evil]

No, I'm still pretty sure Craig was the only actively vocal person who wanted an all microSD device. If anyone else mentioned it, it would have been a passing comment, hardly vocal at all.

But you REALLY want to go there AGAIN? OK.

Nope, and I never said I did. In fact, I'm pretty sure I was quite careful to ensure the conversation did not go the direction that you are trying to drag it. I said, and then restated, that I was strictly talking about your implication that some significantly large group of people, large enough to be wroth mentioning, wants an inferior device with fewer than two full sized, full speed SD cards. You worded your statement in such a way to make your opinion the obviously better choice, insinuating that those that disagreed with you were necessarily wrong. I was clarifying that the argument had not ever been about whether there should be two full sized SD cards or "something else", that it was about what to do about the internal SD slot intended for the OS, whatever else may go on the outside.

At what point is calling other participants names (Jebe) or making hyper sarcastic comments (bismuthdrummer) constructive clarification of anything?

You asked how "either of [us]" was contributing. I wasn't aware that you actually meant "all".

 

[Grench]

You're using the current lack of 32GB+ 90MB/s cards as evidence that it can't be done. Here's another possibility: the market for 16GB $99 high speed cards is much larger than the market for 32GB $199 high speed cards and Sandisk doesn't yet feel like investing in it.

I'm currently using a 256GB Pandora with full sized SD cards capable of 12MB/sec writes and 40MB/sec reads (not in the Pandora which is limited to 18.5MB/sec per slot, 25MB/sec total). The two cards cost me $89 each.


That pretty much crushes your claim that they are equal.


Give a bit of reading to:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce


That technology is 4 years old in SSD media.


Do you REALLY think that NOBODY is using that kind of technology in SD and microSD cards?


Do you REALLY think that there is just as much room inside a microSD card as there is in an SD card?


That is how we suddenly got so much speed and capacity. Pay special attention to the term RAISE in there. Looks a lot like a derivation of server based RAID 5 technology to me - but hey, I'm not allowed to extrapolate in a dreamer's thread.

 

[Grench]

At what point is calling other participants names (Jebe) or making hyper sarcastic comments (bismuthdrummer) constructive clarification of anything?

You asked how "either of [us]" was contributing. I wasn't aware that you actually meant "all".

It is getting late - so I don't have time to reply to all of that. This bit is easy to explain though.


I actually wrote TWO replies. One to you. One to Jebe and bismuthdrummer combined.


These boards took the two replies and merged them into one message. THAT part was not meant for you WizardStan.

 

[Batou456]

Jebe was simply expressing the utter shock and dismay that some of us felt when we found out that CraigIX was considering axing full sized SD slots from the future Pandora 2.

That sir is a lie. I pointed out a pragmatic issue, emotional dismay was not involved. Do you honestly have to add lying about other people on top of general trolling?

I don't blame Jebe for asking the question. Calling me names after I suggested a way to clarify this - that's rather annoying.

Calling you names? Is there something wrong with your head? Calling you names would involve something along the lines of refering to you as a poopy headed reprobate that an Irishman would spit on in disgust. Pointing out your trolling is commenting on behavior, and honestly how do you think you can possibly sell that you aren't by immediately meeting all the requirements of trolling:

-Long incoherent posts


-Excessive use of quote tags


-Not paying attention to others points to the point they comment on their disatisfaction


-Inspiring and continuing unnecessary conflict


& last but not least


-Arguing with everyone in the room while conducting yourself like a drama queen.


Are you telling me I'm supposed to live in a world that if a man blatant does something I can't say they are? Are we no longer allowed to point at someone who has rather clearly commited an act of thievary and cry thief anymore either?


As for constructive, discouraging you from wasting pages of board space on such nonsense seems constructive enough.

 

[Exophase]

I'm currently using a 256GB Pandora with full sized SD cards capable of 12MB/sec writes and 40MB/sec reads (not in the Pandora which is limited to 18.5MB/sec per slot, 25MB/sec total). The two cards cost me $89 each.

That pretty much crushes your claim that they are equal.

For fuck's sake Grench. You keep saying this. That I claim that microSD and SD are equal. And I keep saying "I've never said that" and asking what you're on about. What is your deal exactly?

Give a bit of reading to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce


That technology is 4 years old in SSD media.


Do you REALLY think that NOBODY is using that kind of technology in SD and microSD cards?


Do you REALLY think that there is just as much room inside a microSD card as there is in an SD card?


That is how we suddenly got so much speed and capacity. Pay special attention to the term RAISE in there. Looks a lot like a derivation of server based RAID 5 technology to me - but hey, I'm not allowed to extrapolate in a dreamer's thread.

I know how SSD controllers work. Look at a PCB sometime and you'll see that the controller is smaller than even one of the NAND chips - for something 8-way. Now exactly how big did you dictate the controller must be for your alleged 2-way? Such that it cuts the maximum capacity by 1/4th, right? You said that you get 1/2 the capacity at slow speed or 1/8th the capacity at full speed. That was a hard statement. You're leaving no room for even the smallest bit of error in your claims but you have NO PROOF or even real evidence, just plausibility!


So yes, what I'm asking you is to give evidence that this is the reason for your claim with respect to microSD. Not conjecture. And no of course I don't think there's just as much room inside microSD as SD, what's with all your strawman claims?


FYI, decaps of microSD show that the controller is typically layered on TOP of the NAND chips:


http://bunniestudios...rosd_lineup.jpg


And in those examples nowhere close to the entire surface area is being used. Are you saying that that's the case for new microSD cards? Are you saying that they have transitioned to laying them side by side? Do you have evidence to show anything at all? BTW, these shots also show two NAND chips, so we know that microSD has enough room to facilitate the routing of all those data and address pins to the controller. Understand that there's no real "RAID0" logic to double bandwidth for NAND, it's not like a hard drive array where you have a fairly high level operations stack that has to be duplicated. Actually, it's very common for NAND arrays to be hooked up in parallel, you get the double bandwidth for free so long as the memory controller supports the width. There's no striping logic, just a wider internal datapath, and I guarantee you that you don't need a huge controller to support that compared to the sort of internal datapaths comparable sized logic is capable of supporting (even 32-bit microcontrollers).


(and since this is probably inevitable, yes I realize those decaps are of 2GB microSD and we're talking about ones that are much larger/newer. Before trying to use this to invalidate it please give something to assert that the controller capabilities wouldn't have scaled in size or that the trace geometry capabilities would have changed with denser NAND chips.. and if you want something newer, good luck: decaps are not exactly run of the mill, which is why you're going to have a really hard time giving solid evidence of the IC layout on the fast new microSDs..)

 

[bismuthdrummer]

Of any single option, one microSD and 2 full sized SD slots is the most common acceptable outcome - at 24.52% of respondents finding it to be an 'acceptable' option. Considering it is a 'best of both worlds' result - it isn't surprising.


However, I don't consider 24.52% of people finding a result 'acceptable' to be 'winning'.


If examined closely though - ANY option with 2 full sized SD slots handily beats any option without 2 full sized SD slots.


I answered your demand for information.


Now, what have YOU added of actual constructive value to this thread OR the other one in question?

Beyond what I've already posted about what I think the public's reasoning is for the popular response, I must issue the following correction:


It's not ~25% of people or respondents. It's ~25% of all votes cast. People get more than one vote in your poll, you surely realize?


The percentage of people voting for it at present is 38/62, or 61.29%. Do you agree with this?

 

[WizardStan]

These boards took the two replies and merged them into one message. THAT part was not meant for you WizardStan.

Fair enough. I look forward to seeing your justifications for the rest, however.

 

[Binky]

The majority of people would like two fullSDXC slots in some configuration


I, personally would like them to both be exposed*


I accept that full-size SD is superior to microSD in terms of capacity, possibly speed etc


I would be happy to buy a P2 that was, say 1cm longer from left to right, if there was then room for an internal microSD slot - it seems like a good payoff to me.


To me, having three SDXC slots would be excessive, but more than acceptable if the P2 didn't have to be drastically bigger than the P1


With two external SDXC slots, I would be fine with booting of one of them if I needed the improved performance


*this is because of the possibility of booting off a USB stick, over a network or from a recovery disk on the SOC

 

[bismuthdrummer]

The majority of people would like two fullSDXC slots in some configuration

This is actually a false statement, as only 21 out of 62 people found the 3X SD configuration acceptable. Therefore a majority found this configuration having 2X SD unacceptable.


You really can't separate the elements of each complex choice the way his poll is designed. Or well, you can, but you'll just misrepresent and therefore disenfranchise what people actually said.


All that I see we can safely say about the majority is they find the present configuration or microSD instead of NAND acceptable.

 

[Binky]

21 out of 62 people found the 3X SD configuration acceptable. Therefore a majority found this configuration having 2X SD unacceptable
...


All that I see we can safely say about the majority is they find the present configuration or microSD instead of NAND acceptable.

doesn't this conflict with your above statement?


you said:


1/3 found triple fullSDXC unacceptable


therefore more than half found twin fullSDXC unacceptable


while more than half think having twin fullSDXC with onboard NAND or microSD is acceptable