Pandora with microSD - will you buy it?

[Exophase]

How on earth do you reconcile 2. with 1.???? Full size SD is superior to microSD therefore you think that a fair number of people would rather not use it? Whaaat???

Are you paying even the slightest bit of attention? I said that's why people would prefer having two full sized SD external slots and one microSD boot slot as opposed to what you'd prefer.


It's like you don't have enough attention span to follow what's happening so you immediately revert back to MICROSD BAD GRRRR

I still don't think we should dismiss the USB 3.0 internal hub idea. It has the bandwidth to outstrip every current SDXC card on the market by a 5:1 ratio.

Let me see if I'm following this correctly: you want an internal USB3 hub connected to internal USB SD controllers so you can get access to SD cards that's 5 times faster than what they can provide? Even if you're saying that you want the SD card speed to scale in the future the SD controller itself will probably end up the limiting factor. I don't know what the controllers can theoretically support but there's no reason to assume that said support is much higher than it needs to be to max out the fastest available cards. Controllers that can handle ridiculous speeds are more expensive. Besides, we're talking SD speeds that are not even supported by the standard - the maximum clock allowed by SD v3 is 208MHz and the current fastest cards come close to maxing out that bandwidth. Do you really think the current controllers will have support for SD cards of a standard that isn't even out yet?


That aside, without knowing what the SoC's SD capabilities are why assume that your USB3 SD controller would be any better? Until recently you didn't even know the SoC had SD capabilities..


Or is this still about wanting everything else in the device to connect over USB3 for some reason? Because that wouldn't make their interconnects any faster than they're designed to be either, assuming you somehow managed to get the data into USB3 first..


If Pandora is using a USB3 capable SoC it'll probably have at least one USB3 interface off the SoC that's brought off the device. You'll be free to connect what you want to it, using your own hub if need be.

Apparently TI hasn't been following down that path - since it couldn't happen.


http://www.ti.com/pr...usb9260#feature


http://www.jungo.com...d_usb_usb3.html


But then, what do I know? Nobody would ever make a 8 core 64bit ARM SoC with a USB 3.0 host controller and a top end GPU.


http://techware-blis...-64bit-arm.html


That could never happen... Clearly.

WTF are you on about? Now you're saying I don't think USB3 or 64-bit will come to ARM SoCs? Of course I know they'll have USB3, where do you think I ever said otherwise? Since we don't know for sure what Pandora 2 will be using we don't know if it'll have it yet or not. Of course I know about Project Denver, did you see where I talked about it earlier? Did you see where I said it'd be coming to GPUs first (that web site doesn't know what they're talking about when they speculate Tegra 4 having it, that's ridiculous)? This isn't about whether or not it'll happen, it's about whether or not it's viable for 1) Pandora 2's timeframe and 2) Pandora 2's form factor (including power consumption). It's not.


I know you're desperate to make yourself look right and make me look wrong on this stuff but you should really just give it a rest, you're only making things worse for yourself..

 

[bismuthdrummer]

1.

Yes I agree, a microSD slot is less universal/less convenient to use than a full SD slot.

2.

Which is probably why a fair number of people would prefer to keep an internal boot one microSD

How on earth do you reconcile 2. with 1.???? Full size SD is superior to microSD therefore you think that a fair number of people would rather not use it? Whaaat???

I do hate to prolong this conversation by chiming in, but I think the underlying point here is that you claim:


1 internal full-size SD + 1 external full-size SD > 1 internal microSD + 2 external full-size SD


... and people are not agreeing with this claim. I don't agree with it. I don't find that making a full-size slot internal gives it any more usefulness or power; it just protects it from accidental ejection. So it looks to me like you are saying:


2 full-size SD > 1 microSD + 2 full-size SD


Which reduces to:


0 SD > 1 microSD


Which appears to be a purely absurd and objectively irrational claim.


Your own poll shows the internal microSD + 2 SD configuration to be the lead of the pack, 26 votes at this time. As opposed to 9 for your 1 internal + 1 external SD configuration...


EDIT: Changed some wording about the claim. I did not intend to strawman Grench's position, rather highlight the difference to those who disagree.

 

[Caine]

Here is how I interpret the view of Grench.

1. Full size SD slots are superior in all ways (except size requirements) to micro SD slots.
   I agree with this.
   
2. Having an SD card (ignoring size for now) with the OS instead of the OS on the NAND is a great option.
   Again, I agree. It makes regular package management feasible and it can be replaced if needed.
   
3. Adding an internal SD slot which prevents the card from being ejected while hot is a good design choice for an SD card housing the OS.
   No argument here either. Note that it only protects against ejecting. There is nothing preventing you from running the OS from any of the other slots.
   
4. He rejects microSD cards due to speed/size limitations and doesn't want to put his OS on it.
   I don't agree with his premise here, but he is entitled to his own opinion. I suspect the OS will barely suffer from lower speeds (small programs, rarily boots) etc. Furthermore, it is data (e.g. roms) which require lots of storage not programs (e.g. emulators).
   
5. Feature 3 is a dealbreaker for him. Therefore the internal slot absolutely MUST be a full sized card.
   I disagree with his stance here. I suspect that most people will disagree on point four and there is nothing preventing him from not using the internal microSD and just running the OS from an external full-sized SD instead.
   

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

 

[Linux-SWAT]

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

This is also the view of most of us.

 

[Binky]

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

This is also the view of most of us.

<generic/cliched statement of agreement>

 

[FaeMinx]

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

This is also the view of most of us.

+1, obviously.


I'm actually quite flummoxed by such vehement opposition to this ideal configuration.


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grench]

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

This is also the view of most of us.

+1, obviously.


I'm actually quite flummoxed by such vehement opposition to this ideal configuration.


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

Why's that?


Do you agree with any of these statements?


1. "The primary purpose of having an internal slot (of any kind) is to have something to boot from that can't readily be removed from a running device."


2. "I want my device to boot as quickly as possible."


3. "I want the non-removable storage to be able to also handle /swap."


4. "I want the non-removable storage to have adequate space for programs that I want to keep on the device at all times."


5. "It would also be nice if it were large enough to handle some media files too."


6. "I would like to have my device's primary media cost less when measured in $ per GB and $ per(MB/sec)."


If you concur with any of the 6 above statements, then you would be better off if that internal slot were a full sized SDXC slot.


#1 is the justification for having -any- internal slot.


#2 SDXC media is generally 1.5X to 2X as fast as microSDXC media from the same release time frame.


#3 Because of #2, if you want the card to handle boot AND swap, then you're going to need all of the throughput you can get from the card.


#4 If you have a collection of machine utilities, PND files and such that you'd just as soon have with you all the time - you'll want space for that.


#5 I like having some media on the device so that regardless of which card I have in the other slot on my Pandora, I know I already have my main collection with me.


#6 18 month old SDXC cards costs about 2/3 as much or less than comparatively spec'd microSDXC cards that are released now as 'cutting edge'.


So, if you want a slower, less functional, lower capacity internal slot that costs more money to populate, then you want microSD.


Another hypothetical - if the device had one external SDXC, one external microSD, one internal SDXC and one internal microSD - a four slot device - which slot would you use for what?


I would probably:


Use a 128GB or larger SDXC card in the internal SDXC for boot, /swap, PNDs and persistent storage.


Put a 16-32GB or so microSD card in the internal slot to use as a backup boot & 2nd/backup copy area.


Use a 128GB SDXC card in the external SDXC for media files. I'd swap this in/out of the device as needed to add or sort through data files. If I needed two removable SD slots - a quick adapter to the USB port would be just fine on those rare occasions.


Leave the external microSD card slot empty.


microSD slots simply are not as useful.

 

[slaeshjag]

And they are useless for external media

 

[Grench]

So save board space, GPIOs, etc...


Put one internal full sized SDXC slot and one exposed full sized SDXC slot and call it a day.


With the ability to house an adequately fast & large internal 'drive', there is no need to have two external 'drives' anymore - one is enough.


Why do you want/need TWO external SDXC slots if you don't need to boot from one and have plenty of fast storage inside the device to keep your persistent stuff on?


People who need a microSD slot can use a SD slot to microSD card adapter.


If you need three slots on your device, you can use a USB-SDXC card adapter.


Face it - if you could only have two slots, you would 100% want them to both be full sized SD - even if one is internal.


If you have two full sized SD slots, then I/you/they no longer need a 3rd slot, but instead should apply the $$ that would have been spent on that 3rd slower, lower capacity and more expensive card toward a better SDXC card to use as 'boot'.


More than 43% of the responses to this poll stated that they wouldn't buy a device without at least one full sized SD slot.


More than 72% of the response to this poll stated that they -prefer- a device with at least one SD slot.


You yourself have been a proponent of an internal microSD, but ONLY if there are TWO external SDXC slots. If microSD is as good as SD - then why do you still need TWO external SD slots?

 

[Binky]

1. Full SD is suited to swapping/being removable*, is suited to being an internal disk and has better speed/capacity/price than microSD
   
2. there is not room for three full SD slots in a P"
   
3. three memory cards would be nice (not vital) ...
   
4. ...especially if one was internal (and could not be accidently removed
   
5. microSD is not suitable for frequent swaps, and has marginally poorer value/performance than full SD, but is still suitable for internal storage
   
6. if the P2 had three card slots, the best we could get would be two full SD and one microSD
   
7. see point 4 - one of the three would be internal
   
8. see point 5 - microSD is unsuitable for swapping so should be the internal one
   
9. this results in somewhat poorer performance and capacity for the internal disk,
   
10. but this may or may not be an issue
    
11. for those who are worried about performance/capacity, it would be possible to leave a full SD card in constantly as a boot/persistent disk
    
12. being able to swap cards around while your device is running is also a nice feature
    
13. see point 5 the cards being swapped should be full SD
    
14. if you do not want two swappable cards, you loose nothing by having the slots externally
    

Most importantly see points 2, 3 and 8


*except that a normal end-loading slot would require a very large space to slide out - this is more easily solved using hinged microSD holder assemblies which are not obviously available for full SD

 

[Grench]

1. Full SD is suited to swapping/being removable*, is suited to being an internal disk and has better speed/capacity/price than microSD
   
2. there is not room for three full SD slots in a P"
   
3. three memory cards would be nice (not vital) ...
   
4. ...especially if one was internal (and could not be accidently removed
   
5. microSD is not suitable for frequent swaps, and has marginally poorer value/performance than full SD, but is still suitable for internal storage
   
6. if the P2 had three card slots, the best we could get would be two full SD and one microSD
   
7. see point 4 - one of the three would be internal
   
8. see point 5 - microSD is unsuitable for swapping so should be the internal one
   
9. this results in somewhat poorer performance and capacity for the internal disk,
   
10. but this may or may not be an issue
    
11. for those who are worried about performance/capacity, it would be possible to leave a full SD card in constantly as a boot/persistent disk
    
12. being able to swap cards around while your device is running is also a nice feature
    
13. see point 5 the cards being swapped should be full SD
    
14. if you do not want two swappable cards, you loose nothing by having the slots externally
    

Most importantly see points 2, 3 and 8


*except that a normal end-loading slot would require a very large space to slide out - this is more easily solved using hinged microSD holder assemblies which are not obviously available for full SD

1. So we agree that full sized SD cards are a better overall format - and given a choice between the two, full sized SD is better.


2. Agreed - there is not room for 3 full sized slots in a Pandora II.


3. Agreed - three would be nice, but not vital.


4. Having one of the slots (whether it is 2 or 3) internal would be very nice - especially if we need to boot from a card slot.


5. Partial agreement - microSD is NOT suitable for frequent swaps, has poorer performance than SD. microSD -may- be suitable for some internal storage applications - phones, game machines, connected tablets. However, in the case of a hand held general computing device - microSD falls short on every factor that matters.


6. As we agreed already, three card slots is a fantasy in a device that needs to be physically smaller.


7. Per number 3 - that 3 slots are not vital - and 4 that one was internal and 5 that microSD fails to live up to performance and 2 that there isn't room for 3 slots - logic states that the device should have two full sized SD slots - one internal, one external facing.


8. microSD card's inadequacy for swapping makes it bad for external - but does not give it any implicit benefit over SD for internal placement.


9. This internal microSD option -would- result in a two slot device with poorer capacity & performance per $$ spent on the card - and maximum values would always be dramatically lower than full sized SD.


10. Agreed - for some people slow microSD performance isn't an issue. However, 72% of people would really rather that the next device would have at least one full sized SD port. 43% wouldn't buy it if it didn't have full sized SD port(s). That is a huge market share to disappoint - especially when there is an alternative that meets all of their needs.


11. Which means that in order to get the most out of the device, people would be required to use the device in a manner for which it was ill-designed. Reviewers would be using the device in it's simplest form - and see lower performance. Out of the box people will see lesser performance. $ for $ the capability of the card the device ships with would be less - all because of an intentional decision to put a crippled version of a memory card slot in the device.


12. It sure is nice to be able to boot off of one card and swap cards around using the other slot. Being able to make that boot card large enough to handle data needs too will -eliminate- the need for a 2nd removable card slot for nearly all use cases. For those, a quick USB to SD card adapter cures that need. And, since you can get twice as large of a full sized SD card for about the same price as a microSD card of similar performance - you no longer need a microSD card slot at all. It's cheaper, faster, etc - to just get a larger SD card to begin with and nix the microSD port.


13. I agree completely - an exposed full sized SD card slot for swapping cards in and out of the device is critical. I also want the capacity on my boot card to be able to shuffle data on/off of those SD cards I swap in/out of the device. SD has double the capacity of microSD - and always will.


14. You seem to agree that two full sized SD card slots is critical. What we seem to be missing on is that once you have two full sized slots - a 3rd microSD slot becomes irrelevant. If you have an internal SD card slot and an external SD card slot - why would either of them need to be microSD?


You state that 2,3 and 8 are the most critical.


2 - we agree that space is limited.


3 - we agree that there may not be room for 3 card slots at all - regardless of the type of 3rd slot.


8 - you're assuming that there has to be a microSD slot on the device at all.


You're skipping over 6 as if, "Of course any device with an internal microSD would still have two external full sized SD slots." microSD takes up room too. From what CraigIX implied in other messages, the future device will only have microSD slots - which is, in my humble opinion, a huge miscalculation.


In a world where one slot must be internal and there is not enough space for more than two SD slots, there would be a choice between:


A. device with one internal microSD and two external microSD


B. device with one internal microSD and one external microSD


C. device with one internal SD and one external SD


D. device with one internal microSD and one external SD


Which one would you prefer? For me, A or B are simply not acceptable - I would rather keep using my existing Pandora than to loose the full sized exposed slot. D winds up being problematic because there simply will not be enough room on a microSD to copy enough data to from the SD slot for data staging.


I'm willing to accept a slightly larger device volume for one internal full sized SD AND one external full sized SD. If there are two full sized external SD and an internal microSD - that microSD is a waste of space because for the same $$ I would spend populating it, I could simply double the size of the card in the first SD slot that I would be booting from for speed anyway and go on.


So - if one slot must be internal and there is only room for two slots - I want that internal slot AND the external slot to be full sized, full speed, full capacity SDXC slots. This has more value to me than 3 microSD slots OR one microSD and one SD OR even internal microSD and two external SD - as that internal microSD becomes moot the moment a 2nd full sized SD slot appears on the device.

 

[Grench]

Here is how I interpret the view of Grench.

1. Full size SD slots are superior in all ways (except size requirements) to micro SD slots.
   I agree with this.
   
2. Having an SD card (ignoring size for now) with the OS instead of the OS on the NAND is a great option.
   Again, I agree. It makes regular package management feasible and it can be replaced if needed.
   
3. Adding an internal SD slot which prevents the card from being ejected while hot is a good design choice for an SD card housing the OS.
   No argument here either. Note that it only protects against ejecting. There is nothing preventing you from running the OS from any of the other slots.
   
4. He rejects microSD cards due to speed/size limitations and doesn't want to put his OS on it.
   I don't agree with his premise here, but he is entitled to his own opinion. I suspect the OS will barely suffer from lower speeds (small programs, rarily boots) etc. Furthermore, it is data (e.g. roms) which require lots of storage not programs (e.g. emulators).
   
5. Feature 3 is a dealbreaker for him. Therefore the internal slot absolutely MUST be a full sized card.
   I disagree with his stance here. I suspect that most people will disagree on point four and there is nothing preventing him from not using the internal microSD and just running the OS from an external full-sized SD instead.
   

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

Briefly - your on until 5. At that point you're assuming a 3 slot device with MORE board space than the existing Pandora dedicated to SD memory.


Consider a 2 slot device, that must boot from a card - so must have one slot internalized. Your ideal device, two full sized SD slots and one microSD slot MUST loose a slot. Which one would you give up?


With the savings from removing the internal NAND and not having to include and populate a microSD slot - you could fairly well double the capacity of your primary/boot full sized SD card and get faster performance too.


Another possibility exists - but nobody has touched on it. What about a one slot device with no internal NAND drive? I.e. that one slot and the USB host port has to cover ALL of your use. What kind of slot would you want that ONE slot to be? Next ask yourself why you would want that slot to be anything less if there is a 2nd slot on the device.

 

[Binky]

I prefer having two conveniently swappable cards to having a accident-proof internal one


these two can both be satisfied by having the most slots feasible - two fullSD one microSD


as fullSD is better than microSD, if there were only room for two slots, I'd leave out the microSD


given my first point, I would want both of them to be external

 

[FaeMinx]

I think the optimal design would be two full sized external slots, one internal microSD. NAND is optional.

This is also the view of most of us.

+1, obviously.


I'm actually quite flummoxed by such vehement opposition to this ideal configuration.


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

Why's that?


Do you agree with any of these statements?


1. "The primary purpose of having an internal slot (of any kind) is to have something to boot from that can't readily be removed from a running device."


2. "I want my device to boot as quickly as possible."


3. "I want the non-removable storage to be able to also handle /swap."


4. "I want the non-removable storage to have adequate space for programs that I want to keep on the device at all times."


5. "It would also be nice if it were large enough to handle some media files too."


6. "I would like to have my device's primary media cost less when measured in $ per GB and $ per

1: yes


2: obviously, but provided the boot time isn't painful to endure, I actually wouldn't care. I don't NEED it to boot as fast as possible.


3: Actually, no.


4: Maybe, but probably not.


5: Definitely not.


6: of course, but also something that isn't a big issue for me. I'm one of those people that never buys the highest capacity/performance cards anyway.


My intention would be for the internal slot to house the OS only, so that if it fails, I don't actually lose anything.


But I had always assumed we were pushing for 3 slots.


I would be uncomfortable using my Pandora the way you describe, but if we only had 2 slots, I may have to adapt.


If there were only 1 slot, it would have to be full SD.


I wouldn't mind if we had one internal microSD and an external full SD


I would prefer a full internal SD and a full external SD, but it really isn't an issue for me provided we had a full SD external slot.


I only want the the NAND to be replaced with a card so that the size of the os isn't limited and as a safeguard to ensure longevity of the device.


Even on my desktop pc, the os is installed on a seperate dedicated drive.


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[diligentcircle]

Grench, why are you harping about space? I have never needed more than about 8-12 GB for programs on GNU/Linux; how do you figure you need 120 GB of space just for programs? (Ans that's also assuming you won't be able to get that in MicroSD when the P2 comes out).

 

[Grench]

Grench, why are you harping about space? I have never needed more than about 8-12 GB for programs on GNU/Linux; how do you figure you need 120 GB of space just for programs? (Ans that's also assuming you won't be able to get that in MicroSD when the P2 comes out).

I -don't- need 120GB just for programs. Currently I use:


5 GB for OS (overkill - yes). I wanted to make sure I had room for non PND installs. Currently at 1.2/5GB.


2 GB for /swap (Yes, an actual /swap partition).


20 GB for PND programs - that also includes DOS game files, etc. Currently 15/20 full.


100 GB for persistent media files - things I keep on the device longer term. Primary music library ~24GB. Family & vacation pictures & video ~40GB. A few choice movies 20GB.


That is the left slot. I have another 128GB card in the right slot used for transitional media.

 

[diligentcircle]

So, basically, almost all your storage space is media. I don't see how it matters if you put them on one of two external slots rather than an internal slot. Can you explain that?

 

[Binky]

5 GB for OS (overkill - yes). I wanted to make sure I had room for non PND installs. Currently at 1.2/5GB. 2 GB for /swap (Yes, an actual /swap partition). 20 GB for PND programs - that also includes DOS game files, etc. Currently 15/20 full. 100 GB for persistent media files - things I keep on the device longer term. Primary music library ~24GB. Family & vacation pictures & video ~40GB. A few choice movies 20GB.

Why (in a hypothetical P2) not but programs/OS stuff on a 32GB persistent, internal microSD card


persistent media on an external 128GB SDXC card


transitional media on another external 128GB SDXC card


?

 

[Grench]

5 GB for OS (overkill - yes). I wanted to make sure I had room for non PND installs. Currently at 1.2/5GB. 2 GB for /swap (Yes, an actual /swap partition). 20 GB for PND programs - that also includes DOS game files, etc. Currently 15/20 full. 100 GB for persistent media files - things I keep on the device longer term. Primary music library ~24GB. Family & vacation pictures & video ~40GB. A few choice movies 20GB.

Why (in a hypothetical P2) not but programs/OS stuff on a 32GB persistent, internal microSD card


persistent media on an external 128GB SDXC card


transitional media on another external 128GB SDXC card


?

Because, by the realities of microSD vs SD performance, that puts the OS, /swap and programs on the worst performing media on the device. The very things that can make the best use of high performing media would be relegated to the slowest device/card format available (microSD). The same items that you want on the non-ejectable card are the same items that are bottlenecks if they reside on slow media.


It's like the difference of moving from a spinning SATA hard drive to a Solid State Disk for booting your main computer and handling the most disk intensive tasks. For most people, speed there counts more than speed on the general file storage space.


So, microSD is a poor choice for an internal card because it has worse performance and lower capacity than full sized SD.


microSD makes a poor choice for external card slots because it's a pain to physically deal with, has low capacity, poor device/camera interaction, etc.


In either position, full sized SDXC media is more flexible, more powerful and generally, 'better'.

 

[Binky]

So, microSD is a poor choice for an internal card because it has worse performance and lower capacity than full sized SD.

microSD makes a poor choice for external card slots because it's a pain to physically deal with, has low capacity, poor device/camera interaction, etc.


In either position, full sized SDXC media is more flexible, more powerful and generally, 'better'.

I partly disagree with your first point, yes, microSD has lower maximum capacity at any given time, but this is not an issue - programs do not eat up much space


What about one easily accessible SDXC slot on the front, and another next to TV-out and GPIO headers behind a flap on the back?