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.
Do you got any numbers at all to back that up? Not generalization but an actual comparison between 2 equal tiers of cards. Utra high end vs ultra high end or mid to high tier? (Class 10 vs class 10)
Sent from my MB612 using Tapatalk 2
Yes, I have numbers and I have presented them repeatedly. You can not compare between 2 equal tiers of cards to answer the 'which is better' question. You need to compare the best of what is available at any given DATE, not by CLASS. If you insist on comparing equal class and ratings - then you're dealing with SDXC cards over 1.5 years old vs the latest microSD cards.
To my knowledge, the highest end microSDXC card on the market right now is a 64GB Sandisk class 6 card.
The highest end SDXC card is a 128GB Class 10 UHS-I with 90MB/sec reads and 60MB/sec writes.
The 'equivalent' in microSD won't likely come out for another 1.5 to 2 years. By then SDXC will have doubled again in size and speed.
Grench, the problem with your arguments is it's what YOU want, not what EVERYONE wants, and there have been compelling arguments for why MicroSD would be better for an internal slot, namely that a connecter that would take much less space is possible, but not known to be possible with full SD. Besides, the fact of the matter is if there are two external full SD slots, and you can boot from one of those, your seemingly uncommon preference is still possible.
Agreed, there has been lots of writing revolving around the same arguments, but nothing I've read addresses why
the poll numbers in the other thread show internal microSD + 2 full-size external SD to be the obvious favorite at this stage. Granted, the sample is fairly small, but then again the Pandora userbase doesn't rise to the millions, it stays down in the thousands at the moment.
CraigIX has stated that the next device will be ONLY microSD.
The -overwhelming majority- of users have stated that a device with ONLY microSD is unacceptable.
To anyone here's knowledge, there is no device with two SD and one microSD port on it sitting on the drawing board.
A device with two SD and one microSD is going to, by definition, take up MORE board space than a device with two SD.
The next device is slated to be smaller.
Therefore, the next device -can't- have two full sized exterior SD and one interior microSD. It needs to save space - so increasing the board footprint by adding a 3rd slot isn't going to happen - unless all 3 are micro SD.
Given a choice between a 3 slot microSD system or a 2 slot SDXC system, I would take the 2 slot SDXC system hands down. The majority of the users would too - as presence of an SDXC port is an overwhelming favorite.
If a system -must- have a hidden slot for boot/other, AND is limited to use no more board space than 2 SD slots OR 3 microSD, then I would prefer to have one exposed full sized SDXC and one internal full sized SDXC. That is a more flexible and powerful solution.
THAT is what the question really boils down to. NOT a 3 slot SD/microSD device, but whether you'll be interested if it is a 2-3 slot microSD with one internal OR if it is a 2 slot SDXC with one internal.
Making it a 2 slot full sized SDXC external only system would be OK with me - but ignores the fact that we'll have new users booting from a media that they could easily eject during operation.
My fear is that CraigIX is going to ignore all of this and make a microSD only machine.
microSD is for the birds. It should be avoided - even if it makes the machine thicker/bigger than would otherwise be possible.
