09-11-2003, 05:30 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
NAND Memory On The Rise - Intel Losing Share to Samsung in Flash Memory
http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20030910/ON200309102342001721.var&column=P0DFP
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Samsung is rapidly gaining on Intel in the lucrative flash memory market used in cell phones, cameras and PDAs.
"During the second quarter, for example, the market-research firm iSuppli Corp. estimates that Intel accounted for 19.2% of all flash-memory revenue, down from 25.5% in the fourth quarter of 2002. Over the same period, Samsung's share rose from 16.9% to 17.1%, just a couple of percentage points behind the Santa Clara, Calif., company."
This battle is something savy device users will notice too. Intel's brand of flash memory is the NOR type, which is typically viewed as better for devices like PDAs because apps can be run directly from the ROM. Samsung is pushing NAND memory. It is cheaper, but also has RAM penalties since a section of the devices RAM must be used to hold the code the must be copied out of ROM before it can be processed.
The Wall Street Journal article is here but you must be a subscriber to read the whole thing. I've linked to another summary in the topic header.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 05:42 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 144
|
|
Okay, so is this article saying that we will soon be getting a pocket pc with more RAM at no additional cost, but our sacrafice is that some of the RAM is used to store the ROM data?
Give me a device with 256 MB and take away 32 for ROM storage, at no additional cost for the boost in RAM and ask me if I care I only have 222 MB RAM!
Am I reading that right?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 06:14 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 174
|
|
That's the way I understood it. Personally I think many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 06:25 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 144
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Christian
...many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...
|
It's the "WE FEAR CHANGE" mantality.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 07:55 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by townsendtribe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Christian
...many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...
|
It's the "WE FEAR CHANGE" mantality. |
Try replacing 256 wtih 64 and the calculation comes out very different!
Quote:
|
Give me a device with 64 MB and take away 32 for ROM storage, at no additional cost for the boost in RAM and ask me if I care I only have 32 MB RAM! {left over}
|
I think I would care :|
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 08:20 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Christian
Personally I think many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...
|
Well, to be fair, NAND in the near term is pretty ugly. Witness the 64 MB Viewsonic V35 with only 36.5 MB of usable RAM. Ouch! When you have 128 MB of RAM it's not such a big deal, but at the low end, NAND is a painful solution... :cry:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 08:28 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 144
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surur
Try replacing 256 wtih 64 and the calculation comes out very different! ... Give me a device with 64 MB and take away 32 for ROM storage, at no additional cost for the boost in RAM and ask me if I care I only have 32 MB RAM! {left over}
I think I would care :|
Surur
|
But that's not what I am saying. I am referring to the fact that the NAND is cheaper, so if we were to pay the same price, we would get more, feasably 256 MB. Then the 32 for the ROM wouldn't matter that much. I'm going a bit outside the box...
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 09:02 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
Quote:
|
Personally I think many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...
|
Im of course referring to the needless part. I think those people who actually experienced the current active implementation of NAND had alot of reason to be upset. Maybe in the future things will be alot better.
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 09:03 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by townsendtribe
But that's not what I am saying. I am referring to the fact that the NAND is cheaper, so if we were to pay the same price, we would get more, feasably 256 MB. Then the 32 for the ROM wouldn't matter that much. I'm going a bit outside the box...
|
I think you are going a bit in left field. :wink:
NAND is not so cheap that we go from 64MB to 256MB devices. We aren't even going from 64-96MB. We are just getting 64MB, small file stores and less than stated usable RAM.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-11-2003, 10:12 PM
|
|
5000+ Posts? I Should OWN This Site!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,616
|
|
But if people pay for 64MB of memory, they should get 64MB of useable memory. It's kind of insane to have 64MB of data on a 64MB device, but I wouldn't but any device that had xMB memory but only x-yMB usable by the end user.
__________________
iPhone 4! ☠☠☠ Mid-2010 15" MacBook Pro! ☠☠☠ Gateway LT2102h! ☠☠☠ Dell XPS M1210!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
