Re: I wonder if it would be complicated to design...

[Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> 
>> Jesse <jesse.rehmer@blueworldhosting.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-09 18:52:31 +0000, Steve Nickolas said:
>>> 
>>>> No, seriously - finding really small CFs is prolly next to impossible >
>>>> and using an OS that has a 32 MB limit on multigig flashes is...a >
>>>> horrible waste, not?  1.44 MB is certainly bigger than 140 KB - but >
>>>> it's not extremely large.
>>>>> -uso.
>>> 
>>> It is?  I just bought a 16MB and 32MB CF card from Target in St. Louis
>>> MO.  I see them at BestBuy all the time and every camera shop in town still has them.
>> 
>> Check again--I'll bet they are GB, not MB. ;-)
>> 
> That's a good question.  I got my first digital camera about 2004, maybe
> later, it was a hand me down 2.1mp camera.  It came with some
> compactflash cards, and then a sale came along and I got a 256meg CF
> card.  I can't remember the exact year.
> 
> Then maybe 2009 I got a better digital camera, using SD cards, and the
> smallest SD card I could buy off the shelf was 1gig. Actually the camera
> came with a 128meg card, I think considered filler just to get someone
> going (unlike the first floppy drive and controller that I got, not for
> the APple II, which came with no floppy disk so I had to go out and spend
> more money before using the thing).
> 
> So my impression is that things moved away from CF cards before they got
> really desne.  ON the other hand, since it's been some time, I'm not sure
> you can get lower density CF cards off the shelf these days.
> 
>   Michael

CF cards are more common in "pro" cameras, and they used to have a
significant speed advantage. As a result, they are still made with a "high
end" orientation.

-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon