11-30-2004, 06:30 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
The Evolution of Memory: miniSD and Transflash
Years ago, I remember seeing my first CompactFlash card and thinking "Wow, that's tiny!". Before that, the only flash-based memory I had seen was in the form of PCMCIA cards, and those were very rare (didn't some early digital cameras take them?). Going from PCMCIA-sized cards to CompactFlash-sized cards was a huge leap, and when Secure Digital (SD) cards came out the change was just as radical - how much smaller could they possibly get? SD cards were the smallest form of flash memory I had ever seen, and they stayed the smallest for several years until two new types of memory came to market: miniSD and Transflash (I've never had a device that has used XD, so I'll just ignore that ;-)).
miniSD and Transflash: The Next Generation of Flash
If you've never heard of miniSD or Transflash, that's not surprising - the technology isn't very old, and there aren't many devices that use them yet. Sandisk sent me a 256 MB miniSD card for use on my Orange C500 Smartphone (awesome phone!) and they also sent me a 128 MB Transflash card. As the photo below shows, as small as miniSD is, Transflash is shockingly smaller. 8O
To give you a sense of scale, the 128 MB Transflash card was roughly the size of the nail on my pinky finger. That's small! 8O Why do we need smaller cards? Although I'm not a big fan of new memory types (interoperability is very important to me), as mobile devices become smaller, the need for smaller memory card formats becomes more pressing. Remember that there's an assembly inside the device that reads the card, so if new memory cards can be developed that have smaller read/write assemblies and the cards themselves are smaller, significant space savings can be made. And as long as you can get an adaptor that will work in a slot that you have on your other devices, moving data around is fairly simple.
Why Go This Direction?
I believe that the driving factor is reducing the cost of the phones and increasing profit. Think about this scenario: the customer buys a new feature phone (camera/MP3 player) but the phone has a very small amount of built-in storage, say 8 MB - enough for quite a few pictures, but only one or two songs. When the customer buys the phone, they also buy a memory card that goes into the phone and stays there. If the way the phone works with the memory is completely seamless, this is a great solution.
By having a very basic phone with almost no memory, the cost to the carrier is greatly reduced, and the cost to the customer is also reduced (though we all know the carriers will pocket most of the profit there). Still, it means that they could sell an "MP3 Phone" at a very low cost - and allow the customer to customize how much memory they want. 64 MB? 256 MB? 1 GB? Get whatever you want, put it in the phone, and forget about it.
Why Put Cards Under Batteries?
A common complaint about some new mobile devices (usually phones) is that the memory cards are not easily accessible: they usually go under the battery, making the process of removing/swapping out the card awkward. Why do the manufacturers do this? It depends on the intent of the device. In the case of my Orange C500 phone, the miniSD slot is under the battery, but that doesn't bother me at all. Why? Because I never take it out - it's like RAM in my desktop computer, once I put it in there I forget about it.
Other decisions, like Nokia putting the memory card under the battery then selling "game cartridges" that encourage the user to swap out the card on a regular basis, make no sense. The only time a memory card slot should be hidden under something else is if it's meant to be accessed very infrequently - as in, once or twice in the life of the device.
What's Next?
In larger devices such as PDAs, I think in the future we'll see more dual-slot devices: a miniSD or even Transflash slot under the battery for a one-time (but upgradeable) expansion of storage memory, and an external SD card slot for swapping memory cards with digital cameras, MP3 players, etc. This would give us the best of both worlds, especially if the operating system on the device could look at that memory as being the same. Now wouldn't that be nice?
UPDATE: Smartphone Thoughts reader Bushrod asked about transfer speeds to the phone, which is something I hadn't thought much about (with only 256 MB, I haven't put much music on the card). So I did a test: with the C500 connected to a USB 2.0 port, I copied over a 4 MB WMA file and it took 15 seconds. By way of comparison, with the same miniSD card in an SD adaptor and connected to a USB 2.0 external memory card reader, the same 4 MB song was copied over in 2 seconds. 8O So that's definitely a weakness in this scenario - if the customer has a 1 GB miniSD card and regularly refreshes it with new music, they could be in for a long wait. Clearly, we need to see greater speeds from our mobile devices.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-30-2004, 07:45 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 221
|
|
Smaller memory - great! 
Unfortunately when we get that small we face the very real fact that it's just too tiny for expansion devices to be practical. Even 'big' SD seems too small to me to have a GPS, GPRS, or similar connected to.
So when the tiny memory hits mainstream, do we lose CF/SD from our PPCs and lose universal expansion abilities, or do we keep them and fail to benefit from the smaller sized memory cards?
Then again, given the choice between 1 SD slot or 2/3 Transflash ones.... hmmm...
Oh, and before anyone else says it, those things are going to be damn easy to lose. :P
|
| |
|
|
|
11-30-2004, 07:55 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 55
|
|
When Compact Flash came out, it was impressive. When SD came out, it was impressive, but I think we are cutting size looking at percentage of previous size instead of absolute difference, which is questionable at this point.
I would much prefer the bigger and bigger capacities that are coming instead of giving device manufacturers more profits from memory cards and over flexibility.
What I really want is that my card will be pluggable to USB, like the I-Stick. Reducing the memory card size from an inch to half an inch doesn't do it to me.
Why has the credit card stayed the size it is and didn't become smaller? Because unless you genetically engineer the users to have smaller fingers, you can't make them fumble with fingernail size electronic devices that may cause a disaster (money wize, privacy wize, etc.) if lost.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-30-2004, 07:59 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 15
|
|
The downsizing of flash memory for device upgrade and customizable memory configurations is a good thing. I think TransFlash is reaching that point which it about as small as it should go. Any smaller and the large thumbed users and retail installers will injure themselves or the devices while trying to do the install.
On the other hand, I think that MiniSD is about as small as we should go for a working media. By that I mean a replacement for the CD or the old floppy disk. Any smaller than MiniSD and they will be easily lost and injured. I like SD because it is still large enough that I can find it easily in a pile of stuff and yet it is small enough that I can keep a couple in my pocket without even realizing they are there. Rather than downsizing the media, I think, from a users standpoint, the densities should be maxed so that one doesn't have to carry around multiple cards.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-30-2004, 08:16 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 481
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mr_Ray
...Oh, and before anyone else says it, those things are going to be damn easy to lose. :P
|
Right now I'm toying around with a card to use for my daily backups and sort have settled on the CF format. I wanted to use the SD card but like you said it's getting too small and couldn't just throw it in my wallet or pants pocket without getting lost. But then again aside from my iPAQ 3700 and 3800 series PPC's (with memplug sleeves) my current h4100 uses the SD format (my sharp SL5500 has both CF and SD). So it seems to be the trend in order to make phones and PPC's smaller (and cheaper).
So many cameras use CF and SD and because of the constant swapping of cards I can't see them going any smaller than SD. Although my son just bought a camera that uses a smaller version of the Sony memory stick but I think that it's about the size of an SD card.
While very small is fine when you don't have to change a card often I think that there will be a limit to how small the cards can go if your busy swapping them. The closest thing that I have to being small is the SIM card that comes in my Nextel phone. It's a pain to get out. It's small and very thin (credit card thickness). So I'm wondering if the cards get really small like the ones shown here if there will be a slot like the PPC's have for the SD card (where it's a push in to seat and push in again to eject) or it will have to be laid in like my Nextel phone.
Jeff-
|
| |
|
|
|
11-30-2004, 08:37 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 316
|
|
I really like the idea of easy ROM expansion for portable devices through miniSD or Transflash or even μcard slots under the battery. As things are now, there isn't enough ROM for all the programs you want, but I've never really felt comfortable installing them to removable storage (what if I need to read a file from the same type of flash card?).
The problem lies in using SD or CF as permanent program storage, when the formats were really meant to hold and transfer transient data. Sticking flash under the battery or in a similarly inacessible location turns it into permanent storage, and easily allows for situations like 128 MB built-in ROM plus 256 or 512 MB add-on, while leaving your CF/SD slot(s) available for pictures, music, movies, presentations, or whatever else you want to carry around with you... not to mention wired Ethernet cards, cameras, GPS receivers, VGA adapters, barcode scanners, serial and USB ports, radio and TV tuners, or digital multimeters.
I just pray that none of these lilliputian nightmares replace SD as the small portable flash format of choice. I already have some difficulty handling, inserting, and removing those, but the absolute size tradeoff vs. CompactFlash overshadows the troubles. Anything smaller rapidly approaches unusability, and provides ever diminishing returns (sure, one-third the size of SD sounds impressive, but is only about the volume of a nickel). And also it will get expensive to include tweezers and a magnifying glass with every purchase. :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
11-30-2004, 10:35 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
All the CF vs SD arguments apply here regarding capacity. A SD card of the same density of a mini-sd card will always have a larger capacity.
I suspect these cards were introduced for the same reason Sony introduced memory stick - to create a new market, and sell different media to the same people (e.g. CD's when you already had the LP)
Im sure most people have a 128MB SD card. Now they will have to rebuy a TF card for their phone too (probably for $100 too)
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
12-01-2004, 12:05 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 163
|
|
I think the reason why we have smaller memory cards is because we NEED them. One of my students just bought a new UMTS (3G) phone that supports video conferencing, watching TV and God knows what else. Naturally, this phone needs more memory than older phone models. It is the first time I have ever seen a TF card in use, and I still can't believe how small it is, about half the size of the SIM card!!!(I could not help taking pictures, that's how awed I was.) A bigger memory card would never fit in that phone. The reason it is underneath the phone is probably so that you don't loose it by accident - if you have to first remove the battery, you will definitely pay attention by the time you finally get to the card.
It came, however, with a TF-to-MMC adapter, which shows that even though the industry would like us to only take out the card once or twice during the phone's lifetime, users have different needs. The first smartphones were cool but horribly limited - with BT about the only means to transfer media from one device to another without expensive MMS costs. (And as far as I know you can't even send MP3s, WAVs, MIDIs and such by MMS - but not that I ever tried, and I may be wrong there.) Bluetooth is fine but tediously slow if you are transfering a long video.
Being able to take the card out for data transfer gives you extra freedom: You can take out the card and stick it into one of those picture printing machines we have in every store nowadays - no need to send anything to an email address first, and no need to pay expensive MMS fees.
You can upload movies and MP3s to it right away. Maybe there is a cultural difference - but who does not have at least an external 6/7/8/whatever-in-one card reader in Germany nowadays. They sell them even in grocery stores. Digital cameras have long replaced analog cameras - so we are used to using removable memory cards. We like them, and we need them. No matter how small, we want to touch them and hold them and.. OK, it's getting weird now. :mrgreen:
|
| |
|
|
|
12-01-2004, 03:58 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 107
|
|
I agree with gibson042. Manufacturers don't want us to use our old cards on new devices. The space saved is small. One exception being PDAs such as the Dell X50 and HP 4700 and high-end digital cameras. In these cases CF slots are selling points.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-01-2004, 04:03 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wshwe
The space saved is small.
|
I'm curious how you know that - I don't have any proof to disagree, but do you have proof of this?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
