Why are we bringing back CF?!?!?!?!?

[Loudsound]

ok this should bust out a nice little flame run.

I am getting set to jump into a new and VGA enabled PocketPC. I am reading the reviews and the specs and of course the accompanying posts on various forums. I have noticed something troubling......CF is coming back! Not only have manufacturers felt forced to bring this dying format back but so many people seem happy about it.

I am thinking back to manufacturers during the VESA, EISA and PCI changeover days. Poeple who had dumped some cash into the predecessor tech cryed and whined so that MBoard makers kept including dual slots or worse....not adopting the latest.

I have a Viewsonic v37 right now. I love the slimline......it fits in my pocket and I barely notice it. It feels solid as a rock and altogether very Star Trekky in its datapad stylings. I also have a Dell Axim x5 that I was going to change up to but the CF slot added unnecessary bulk and girth. I put off my changeover with the hopes that with integrated WiFi and BT I would have no need for the CF and a new model would be groovy. BUT NO! New models have come out and lo and behold the clunky grandmother interface has come back!

So let the flames erupt but I really wish that those among you who have put cash into CF could cut losses and stop thinking that supporting a dying interface is a good thing. There are people that are just starting in and for us SD/SDIO is just fine with integrated wifi and BT. All that CF is doing is added in a 1/2 inch of dead space and makes the overall unit feel a little KMart.

I do apologize to the 1.5% of people that have 4 gig microdrives and watch movies and all of that. I do not apologize to 2 gig and under, GPS, Ethernet or wireless users who are forcing backward compatibility. And for people with barcode scanners...........Symbol and Intermec will always take care of you.

So flame it up but while you do write a pissed of letter to Asus that you have a killer 16BM matrox VESA card that you demand a slot for.

[Menneisyys]

Actually, there're quite a few topics with this subject. The most important is prolly http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31914

[JvanEkris]

It's cheaper, has a HUGE bus with accompanying SPEEDS (45x read-speeds are easily attained) and AFAIK technically it allows for larger capacities (fysical size is becomming an issue).

Besides that, all semi-professional SLR-camera's i've seen work on CF because of it's speed and size. So if you are looking for compatibility.......

Jaap

[Janak Parekh]

BUT NO! New models have come out and lo and behold the clunky grandmother interface has come back!
Well, a couple points.

1. VGA units are currently the "high-end" units, and as such integrate a lot of functionality. Once they become more ubiquitous I'm sure you'll see variations in formfactor and features. In fact, I'm sure people are buying the units for the ability to view photos, and having a CF slot is useful for interfacing with cameras.

2. CF isn't that size-defining. The Loox 720, Axim X50v and Asus A730(w) are all quite svelte despite their excellent expandability.

3. CF is not dead. Not yet. ;)

--janak

[Sven Johannsen]

Give it time. VGA is a new feature, that is only available at the moment to the top of the line models. Those tend to include more stuff to be able to put more bullets in the spec sheet. CF is a fairly cheap to add, spec bullet. I would like to see dual slot PPCs, but dual SD, one of which at least should be SDIO. There were times that only having the one slot in my 4155 was inconvenient, lke wanting to throw in the SD Camera, but then not having much memory for the snaps.

I would have really liked to see a VGA, WM2003SE, MP10, 4155 myself. an extra SD slot would have been icing on the cake. stick it under the battery like a SIM card and I'd have been in heaven.

[Loudsound]

ok I do like the concept of the dual SDs. That would be nice. And the under the battery conepts is genius! Or even a MiniSd upgrade that could go under the batt and use an accessible SDIO for other mem or IO functions. Coooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

To earler poster:

But I want CF to die now....NoOoOoOoOwWWWwwwww hehehe 8O
Oh and I am giving my Dell to my wife so she can use it to preview camera photos via CF.........so I do get the interoperability concept. But its an 80/20 thing now and when you can preview easier on your camera and just transfer the onces you like to an SD then its not the same.

Its like a CF killed my parents and I am out for Batman like revenge (Batman and all character references, including but not limited to the Cowl(r), the Cape(r) the batsignal(r) and the Batusi(r) are registered to DC Comics Inc....and....that other guy that came up with him.....you know.... Bill Clinton?)

[surur]

What is the thinnest wm2003 pocketpc vs the thinnest vga pocketpc? If somebody nominates a device I can easily google the specs so we can compare.

For the record the HP4700 is the thinnest at 14.9mm, and the Loox a close second at 15.2mm

Surur

[Loudsound]

The Viewsonic v37 is 10 millimeters (.4 inch) for whatever that is worth

[Janak Parekh]

The Viewsonic v37 is 10 millimeters (.4 inch) for whatever that is worth
... and the Viewsonic has fairly short battery life even with a QVGA display. Throw a VGA display in that unit and you'll see the battery life too short, at least until VGA display power efficiency increases.

I understand what you want -- something like an iPAQ 4150 with VGA -- but it's still a little time away before the technology works well in that form factor.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

For the record the HP4700 is the thinnest at 14.9mm, and the Loox a close second at 15.2mm
In cubic meters, though, the Loox would easily be the smallest, right?

From what I've heard, when people first see the Loox, they're surprised at how small it is. F/S have certainly done a very decent job with the formfactor of the unit.

--janak

[Loudsound]

yeah that battery life does honk I'll give you that. To be honest I am probably going to get the Dell and hardly notice the .5 inch. If I snap a 2200 battery on that bad boy it'll all be good.

But I will stick to my guns that CF will die in the next 3 years. :devilboy:

[surur]

Yes, it seems the size of the screen has more to do with the size of the unit than a CF slot. The CF slot does not extend all the way to the end of the unit, and the battery has to go somewhere.

In the middle of the unit the thickness is determined by the battery, like:

======================
######Battery######!!!!CF!!!!
=====================
******Motherboard*****!!!SD!!!!
=====================
]]]]]]]]Screen]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
====================

and nothing much is going to make it thinner (accept for non-user replaceable Lithium-Polymer batteries :roll: )

Surur

[Sven Johannsen]

What is the thinnest wm2003 pocketpc vs the thinnest vga pocketpc? If somebody nominates a device I can easily google the specs so we can compare.

For the record the HP4700 is the thinnest at 14.9mm, and the Loox a close second at 15.2mm

Surur

I thought the X50 was pretty thin for what it had, but I see it is 16.9 mm. Thinness is only one dimension though, so I think you have to go with volume, cubic somethings. X50v is 146.8 cc for starts, and the 4700 seems to be 151.46cc. The Loox seems to be 133.5cc, pretty good.

I'd have to guess the 4155 must be right in there for thin WM2003 units, 13.5mm, volume, 108.27cc. Of course those all assume the devices are boxes, l*w*h, which they are not. So maybe someone will do a water displacement volume check on them ;)

[Menneisyys]

so she can use it to preview camera photos via CF.........so I do get the interoperability concept. But its an 80/20 thing now and when you can preview easier on your camera and just transfer the onces you like to an SD then its not the same.


I'd debate with that. Now that PDA screens easily outclass ANY digicam screens, even in outdoor visibility (not to mention resolution - VGA vs. the avg. 150 kpixels - and size - 3.6-4" vs. 1.5-2"), PDA's can be far better at serious photo reviewing than digicams themselves. Today's sophisticated pic viewer/toucher apps easily outclass annything a digicam can offer. Ever seen a digicam with e.g. red eye-correction post-processing? Batch operations while sharing to the Web? Automatic/manual post-processing adjustments? Even displaying histograms are rare in digicams... On the PPC, e.g. Spb Imageer knows these tricsk all... and now, PPC's are prolly faster at image loading than digicams. For my newest article (roundup & benchmarking all the available image viewer / editor apps on the PPC), I've measured the loading times of 14 Mpixel images on my PL720, from an SD card (meaning slightly restricted loading speeds). Top apps (Spb Imageer, Resco etc) were able to display them in 4-5 seconds. The same stands for EXIF image thumbnail listing - PDA's can be orders of magnitude faster at that.

[Paragon]

I really wish that those among you who have put cash into CF could cut losses and stop thinking that supporting a dying interface is a good thing. There are people that are just starting in and for us SD/SDIO is just fine with integrated wifi and BT. All that CF is doing is added in a 1/2 inch of dead space and makes the overall unit feel a little KMart.

A few simple words........If_you_don't_want_a_device_with_a_CF_slot_DON'T_buy_one!

What happens when the colour of my car doesn't meet with your appoval? ;)

Have a nice day! :)

Dave

[JvanEkris]

But I want CF to die now....NoOoOoOoOwWWWwwwww hehehe 8O :?:

Hmmm, looks to me you want a monologue instead of a discussion based on facts. Please tell me now, then i will drop out of a pointless discussion right away.

I am giving my Dell to my wife so she can use it to preview camera photos via CF.........so I do get the interoperability concept. But its an 80/20 thing now and when you can preview easier on your camera and just transfer the onces you like to an SD then its not the same.Well,

it isn't about playing with gadgets here. PocketPC's are serious business tools and do have to have more capabilities than a slow SD-card interface. My father in law is a professional photographer. He uses his Hx4700 with CF card to mail his pictures directly from the field to the newspapers. This saves a lot of time for him. And that is an audience that is an important one.

Jaap

[Fishie]

Who let SeanH back on the boards?

[Anthony3000]

what I would like to see is "addon RAM" basically being a miniSD/SD/whatever underneath the battery that can act as built in RAM.

CF cards... Price over size.

[Darius Wey]

Who let SeanH back on the boards?

What? :?

[Menneisyys]

Who let SeanH back on the boards?

What? :?

Prolly he meant the forum search options. The Search option above.

Of course, it's good to know what to search for - that is, the right keywords. For me, who have been following PPCT since its inception and remember almost all the subjects (like this one) discussed on the main page, pretty easy to find old, related topics.

[Menneisyys]

PocketPC's are serious business tools and do have to have more capabilities than a slow SD-card interface.

Actually, in a PDA, SD interfaces are no longer slower than CF interfaces. (Long are gone the times of the 1-bit, dog-slow SD interfaces like that of the iPAQ 38xx). Actually, under the same conditions, SD cards of the same speed are generally faster than CF cards. I've benchmarked CF/SD cards in tons of current machines (starting with the 2210), and found out that SD is faster in almost all these devices. E.g., reading and rendering the same set of 5+ Mpixel images is considerably faster from a plain SanDisk SD than from a 40* Ridata. (More on these benchmark results in my forthcoming pic editor/viewer roundup.)

Of course, the situation may still be different with hi-speed (semi-)pro digicams. But, an SD-based camera is not necessarily (much) slower than a CF-based one. So, using a CF in a digicam is more like the question of the available max. capacity and not of the speed.

[Darius Wey]

Prolly he meant the forum search options. The Search option above.

No, I know what he was talking about now. I just woke up when I made that previous post, and wasn't thinking about the connotations of Fishie's post. ;)

[yslee]

I'd debate with that. Now that PDA screens easily outclass ANY digicam screens, even in outdoor visibility (not to mention resolution - VGA vs. the avg. 150 kpixels - and size - 3.6-4" vs. 1.5-2"), PDA's can be far better at serious photo reviewing than digicams themselves. Today's sophisticated pic viewer/toucher apps easily outclass annything a digicam can offer. Ever seen a digicam with e.g. red eye-correction post-processing? Batch operations while sharing to the Web? Automatic/manual post-processing adjustments? Even displaying histograms are rare in digicams... On the PPC, e.g. Spb Imageer knows these tricsk all... and now, PPC's are prolly faster at image loading than digicams. For my newest article (roundup & benchmarking all the available image viewer / editor apps on the PPC), I've measured the loading times of 14 Mpixel images on my PL720, from an SD card (meaning slightly restricted loading speeds). Top apps (Spb Imageer, Resco etc) were able to display them in 4-5 seconds. The same stands for EXIF image thumbnail listing - PDA's can be orders of magnitude faster at that.

Histograms are common in most higher end consumer cameras and all modern digital SLRs.

In addition, I'm not keen on editing photos where the display can only show 40 levels of intensity in each channel.

And the reason why CF will never die overall (might get phased out in PDAs as they get smaller though):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/nikond2x/d2x-specs-001.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/canon1dsmkii-big-001.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/mamiya_zd-001.jpg

[Menneisyys]

Histograms are common in most higher end consumer cameras and all modern digital SLRs.

Note the word 'higher end' :) Actually, Idruna Pocket Phojo, PQV 3.0, Fujitsu-Siemens Album, DIGIVUE, PictPocket Cinema 4.0, Glass Lantern's PocketLoupe 1.69b and Conduits Pocket Artist 2.7 all have histogram capabilities on the PPC. Of the most know names, only Spb Imageer 1.2, XnView 1.20 and Resco Picture Viewer 5.1 don't display histogram.

NB. I'm not questioning CF does have a speed advantage over SD in hi-end digicams, mainly because of the 8-bit-bus (as opposed to 4-bit-buses). In hi-end digicams, where every kbytes/s write speed counts, it's highly unlikely that CF would die in the next few years. It's just that some decent ultra-compact, but otherwise very fast cameras (e.g., Canon Digital IXUS 40) use SD and current PDA's access SD generally faster than CF. So, it's not right to say 'SD's are slower than CF cards', because that's only true with hi-end digicams, and not with PDA's.

[yslee]

Yes, higher end vs high end. My ancient IXUS v2 has it. A fairly cheap Minolta Z1 has it.

[Menneisyys]

Yes, higher end vs high end. My ancient IXUS v2 has it. A fairly cheap Minolta Z1 has it.

The Nikon Coolpix 2000 doesn't have it. Speaking of "budget", but more modern cameras, Canon PowerShot A70 doesn't have it (neither does any Canon A camera AFAIK). So, with lower-end, but quality cameras, histogram capabilities are not that common. This is why PDA-based digicam tools may be of great help.

[JvanEkris]

Of course, the situation may still be different with hi-speed (semi-)pro digicams. But, an SD-based camera is not necessarily (much) slower than a CF-based one. So, using a CF in a digicam is more like the question of the available max. capacity and not of the speed.I must say i have not benchmarked any cards myself. But when looking at a 80 pin connector of a CF-card (allowing parrallel communication) or a 4 pin-connector on a SD card (only allowing serial communication) i see a lot of potential there. Probably when using a PDA your more looking at the throughput of the device than the speed of the card used: the PocketPC could very well be the bottleneck.

When looking at the high-end cards used in camera's (i.e. the 45x and higher cards) i do see any equivalents in SD variants surfacing here. With current high-end camera's shooting burst of 10 RAW 22 megapixel shots per second this speed is extremely important as a selling point (professionals like this just to make sure they do not mis any shots), and hardware is optimized for these speeds: they have faster writers i the camera.......

Jaap

Jaap

[Menneisyys]

Of course, the situation may still be different with hi-speed (semi-)pro digicams. But, an SD-based camera is not necessarily (much) slower than a CF-based one. So, using a CF in a digicam is more like the question of the available max. capacity and not of the speed.I must say i have not benchmarked any cards myself. But when looking at a 80 pin connector of a CF-card (allowing parrallel communication) or a 4 pin-connector on a SD card (only allowing serial communication) i see a lot of potential there.

Actually, the SD card has a 4-bit memory bus but can be accessed in 1-bit (serial) mode as well (an example of the iPAQ 38xx); it was the MMC that was strictly 1-bit.

Probably when using a PDA your more looking at the throughput of the device than the speed of the card used: the PocketPC could very well be the bottleneck.

Sure, this is what I've been emphasizing too.

When looking at the high-end cards used in camera's (i.e. the 45x and higher cards) i do see any equivalents in SD variants surfacing here. With current high-end camera's shooting burst of 10 RAW 22 megapixel shots per second this speed is extremely important as a selling point (professionals like this just to make sure they do not mis any shots), and hardware is optimized for these speeds: they have faster writers i the camera.......

I did mention hi-end cameras on purpose have CF's - because of the speed. Lower-spec/speed SD cameras, however, would not necessarily have any speed advantage of using CF instead of SD. After all, most consumer (non-pro) cameras can't even make advantage of hi-speed CF cards (see e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/mediacompare/ - it's not the latest article, and Nikon Coolpix 995 is much slower at writing to cards than e.g. a current middle-of-the-road cameras, e.g. the Canon Digital Ixus 40, but the article still does illustrate my point.)

[surur]

But when looking at a 80 pin connector of a CF-card (allowing parrallel communication) or a 4 pin-connector on a SD card (only allowing serial communication) i see a lot of potential there.
Jaap

I dont know anything about cameras, but just as a general point, serial does not mean slow, and parralel does not mean fast. Serial means much less issues with clock synchronization, which allows much higher speeds. Just look at USB 2.0, firewire and serial ATA.

The future is serial.

Surur

[JvanEkris]

But when looking at a 80 pin connector of a CF-card (allowing parrallel communication) or a 4 pin-connector on a SD card (only allowing serial communication) i see a lot of potential there.
Jaap

I dont know anything about cameras, but just as a general point, serial does not mean slow, and parralel does not mean fast. Serial means much less issues with clock synchronization, which allows much higher speeds. Just look at USB 2.0, firewire and serial ATA.

The future is serial.

SururEver looked at SCSI, because when things really get serious, they start using that......

Jaap

[surur]

The future is serial.

SururEver looked at SCSI, because when things really get serious, they start using that......

Jaap

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

Serial Attached SCSI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) is a new generation of SCSI hard disks designed to allow for much higher speed data transfers. SAS does this by serial communication instead of the parallel method found in traditional SCSI devices.

SAS supports up to 16,256 addressable devices per port and point to point data transfer speeds up to 3Gbps, but is expected to reach 10Gbps by the year 2010. The SAS connector is much smaller than traditional parallel SCSI connectors allowing for small 2.5 inch drives.

The physical SAS connector is form factor compatible with SATA, allowing for much cheaper SATA drives to connect to a SAS backpane. SAS drives are not compatible on a SATA bus and have their physical connector keyed to prevent any plugging into a SATA backpane.


The future of SCISI is serial :)

Surur

[Menneisyys]

The future is serial.

SururEver looked at SCSI, because when things really get serious, they start using that......

Jaap

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

Serial Attached SCSI
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) is a new generation of SCSI hard disks designed to allow for much higher speed data transfers. SAS does this by serial communication instead of the parallel method found in traditional SCSI devices.

SAS supports up to 16,256 addressable devices per port and point to point data transfer speeds up to 3Gbps, but is expected to reach 10Gbps by the year 2010. The SAS connector is much smaller than traditional parallel SCSI connectors allowing for small 2.5 inch drives.

The physical SAS connector is form factor compatible with SATA, allowing for much cheaper SATA drives to connect to a SAS backpane. SAS drives are not compatible on a SATA bus and have their physical connector keyed to prevent any plugging into a SATA backpane.


The future of SCISI is serial :)

Surur

Not to mention present-day SCSI is by no means faster than e.g. UDMA SATA drives. It's just their far less CPU cycle usage & constant, reliable throughput (which is very important in multi-user environments & media work) & generally bigger RPM that they're preferred over IDE drives, not because of their speed.

[timb]

IDE drive quality is on par with SCSI drive quality these days. With the price of IDE drives so low and the storage capacity of them so high, SCSI is dying.

You can put together a 200GBx4 SATA RAID-5 array for less than a grand. With a hardware controller to boot, so no high CPU usage.

-Timothy

[Janak Parekh]

IDE drive quality is on par with SCSI drive quality these days.
I've heard reports stating otherwise, actually.

You can put together a 200GBx4 SATA RAID-5 array for less than a grand. With a hardware controller to boot, so no high CPU usage.
Yeah, some of the new RAID controllers (like the Escalades) are very nice. Still, SCSI offers higher sustained throughput in certain specialized situations... and it has more robust hotplug support and the like, so it's still used in most commercial server products.

--janak

[KimVette]

Based on:


Loudsound
Pocket PC Neophyte

Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4


And the tone of the topic and post, I suspect this is our dear Anti-CF friend who was banned some months back. Let's not feed the troll who refuses to accept the fact that CF outperforms other form factors, some devices available in CF form factor are simply not available for SD and never will be, and some people have very specific reasons as to why they WANT CF rather than SD.

[KimVette]

A few simple words........If_you_don't_want_a_device_with_a_CF_slot_DON'T_buy_one!

What happens when the colour of my car doesn't meet with your appoval? ;)

Have a nice day! :)

Dave

Oh that's easy, Dave! We create a stink and complain that Corvettes (or any other sportscar, for that matter) should not be available in any color besides black or blue because I prefer those colors. Screw everyone who likes red, yellow, white, etc. :D

[Sven Johannsen]

I know you guys are having fun, but I must agree it would be nice if a VGA PPC existed without a CF slot. A 4155 with a VGA screen and WM2003SE might be nice. Far be it from me to suggest that CF should be banned, just so that would happen though.

[timb]

Hey... It could be worse, each PDA could come with it's own proprietary expansion slot... *Has flashbacks to his Velo 500.*

-Timothy

[Darius Wey]

Hey... It could be worse, each PDA could come with it's own proprietary expansion slot...

They're called CLIEs. ;)