<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC - Gizmodo Comments]]></title>
		
	    	<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:05:43 EST]]></lastBuildDate>
	    	<pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:05:43 EST]]></pubDate>
		<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4385188]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>Using SDHC as an HDD replacement isn't for microsoft users.  It's for those who know enough to avoid microsoft.</p>
<p>People use SD and CF cards as storage in silent or no-moving-part PCs.  This includes HTPCs, MythTV frontends, Car PCs, backup servers (for the OS, not the storage), etc.</p>
<p>Amazing things are being done with minimal resource machines.  Memory cards are not just for portability, that's just how windows users see them.</p> <p><a href="http://bronosky.com">RichardBronosky</a></p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[RichardBronosky]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4385188]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:05:43 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4302120]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>well the thing is.....  if youre running vista you wont want less then a gig anyways...   and the whole ready boost option on thumbdrives/flashdrives seems rather pointless to me......    system ram performs as gigs a second.... a usb device performs optimistically at 30megs a second if someones pc is performing so poorly that 30megs a second makes a difference....  they need a new pc ^_^</p> <p>flamingsocks</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[flamingsocks]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4302120]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:36:15 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4287049]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>Well for a SDHC card to read and write at PATA speeds i think thats really good.<br>
I doubt SDHC's are going to be used on anything but phones, cameras and other multi-media devices.<br>
I doubt a computer is going to use SDHC as a hard drive. <br>
It would be really good to have an SDHC as a ram alternative like what vista offers with its readyboost feature. Which i think no one uses except those who have those old ass computers with barely enough ram to run the system.</p> <p>SneakerFiend</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[SneakerFiend]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4287049]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:16:23 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4279933]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>usb has a max theoretical bandwidth of 60mB/s,   sata has a max theoretical of 300mB/s as sata II of course     But how ssd and sdhc are managed are completely different, so you really cant compare them unless you are willing to refurbish a sdhc card to have an actively powered 8+mB high performance buffer that internal hdd/ssd's have while having the same use of bandwidth like sata or dumb down the ssd to a usb interface where you wont ever see that 90mB throughput.</p> <p>flamingsocks</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[flamingsocks]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4279933]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:20:53 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4276811]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>They should have used some of these:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.syba.com/Product/List/Id/93">[www.syba.com]</a></p>
<p>The dual one takes two CF cards, last time I searched newegg there were 32GB versions.</p>
<p>This is great stuff for future portables, spinning platters will always have a little risk to them.</p>
<p>I'm guessing, this is going to drive up regular hard drive prices, while the solid state drives are going to come down in price. Same way it did for ram modules.</p> <p>skulldriveshaft</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[skulldriveshaft]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4276811]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:26:22 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4276802]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>couldn't a SDHC to SATA interface be worked up?  They have one for CF.</p> <p>thechansen</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[thechansen]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4276802]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:25:14 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4276637]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>How much of the speed difference can be attributed to SATA vs. USB (they did use USB card readers, right?)</p> <p>pastrychef</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[pastrychef]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4276637]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:09:28 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4276187]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>I was about to ask why Snake was in the picture.  And then BAM!  ...there it hit me.</p> <p>blacksamurai87</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[blacksamurai87]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4276187]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:29:54 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4276085]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<P>@<A href="http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4275246">spatchpatch</A>: <BR>A new picture? No. A better picture? Yes.</P></BR> <p>THLinTX</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[THLinTX]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4276085]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:21:23 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4275246]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<P>Would it be that hard to find a new picture for the almost daily stories about SSD's?</P> <p>spatchpatch</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[spatchpatch]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4275246]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:00:51 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4275198]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>Are they really comparable in the first place?  I mean, isn't SDHC meant for portability?  I don't think I'd want to have it as a main HD in the first place.</p> <p>Reilaos~</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Reilaos~]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4275198]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:56:30 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4274829]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>Duh, I though that would be kind of obvious, with SSD having more bandwidth in terms of pins per connector than SDHC.</p> <p>Theophilus P. Wildebeeste</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[Theophilus P. Wildebeeste]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4274829]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:21:28 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Flash on Flash: SSD Benchmarked Against SDHC]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/357885/flash-on-flash-ssd-benchmarked-against-sdhc#c4274532]]></link>
		    <description><![CDATA[<p>I don't know if that's an apples to apples comparison given SDHC cards still don't really overcome the read/write limits inherent in standard flash memory that SSHDs do.</p>
<p>I thought THAT was the primary difference.</p> <p>strider_mt2k</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[strider_mt2k]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:357885:c4274532]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:54:30 EST]]></pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>