If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and re-writing,
then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?

Are they safer than Flash?

--


----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via UsenetRevolution.com - Revolutionary Usenet
** HIGH RETENTION ** Specializing in Large Binaries Downloads **
http://www.UsenetRevolution.com

On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe" <joe@joe.puck>
wrote:

>
>
> If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and re-writing,
> then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
> IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
>
> Are they safer than Flash?

I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
--
Brian Ehni

"Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net...
> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe" <joe@joe.puck>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and re-writing,
> > then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
> > IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
> >
> > Are they safer than Flash?
>
> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
> --
> Brian Ehni
>
>

Depends on your requirements...

Joe wants to write and rewrite lots of data, and solid state flash drives
have a limited number of write cycles (about 1 million) before the memory
starts to wear out. The Micro-drive will have much better longevity in this
case.

If you want something that is robust and better able to cope with knocks and
bangs, then its flash memory all the way as you say. Even still, the
micro-drive is able to cope with a ridiculous level of G-shock, 200G when
operating and 2000G!!!! when not operating. Typically flash memory devices
are quoted as being able to sustain 2000G either operating or not, so their
robustness, is only an advantage when in use. So I don't think people should
worry too much.

On 2/2/05 3:49 AM, in article 4200a07b$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net,
"Stephen Moll" <stephen.moll@nospam.amsjv.com> wrote:

>
> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net...
>> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
>> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe" <joe@joe.puck>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and re-writing,
>>> then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
>>> IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
>>>
>>> Are they safer than Flash?
>>
>> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
>> --
>> Brian Ehni
>>
>>
>
> Depends on your requirements...
>
> Joe wants to write and rewrite lots of data, and solid state flash drives
> have a limited number of write cycles (about 1 million) before the memory
> starts to wear out. The Micro-drive will have much better longevity in this
> case.
>
> If you want something that is robust and better able to cope with knocks and
> bangs, then its flash memory all the way as you say. Even still, the
> micro-drive is able to cope with a ridiculous level of G-shock, 200G when
> operating and 2000G!!!! when not operating. Typically flash memory devices
> are quoted as being able to sustain 2000G either operating or not, so their
> robustness, is only an advantage when in use. So I don't think people should
> worry too much.
>
>
Write cycles is fine. What's the Meantime Between Failure (MTBF) difference
between a micro drive and a solid state?

I'll take the solid state, thank you.
--
Brian Ehni

"Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE26E28D.1E037%behni@comcast.net...
> On 2/2/05 3:49 AM, in article 4200a07b$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net,
> "Stephen Moll" <stephen.moll@nospam.amsjv.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net...
> >> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
> >> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe"
<joe@joe.puck>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and
re-writing,
> >>> then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
> >>> IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
> >>>
> >>> Are they safer than Flash?
> >>
> >> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
> >> --
> >> Brian Ehni
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Depends on your requirements...
> >
> > Joe wants to write and rewrite lots of data, and solid state flash
drives
> > have a limited number of write cycles (about 1 million) before the
memory
> > starts to wear out. The Micro-drive will have much better longevity in
this
> > case.
> >
> > If you want something that is robust and better able to cope with knocks
and
> > bangs, then its flash memory all the way as you say. Even still, the
> > micro-drive is able to cope with a ridiculous level of G-shock, 200G
when
> > operating and 2000G!!!! when not operating. Typically flash memory
devices
> > are quoted as being able to sustain 2000G either operating or not, so
their
> > robustness, is only an advantage when in use. So I don't think people
should
> > worry too much.
> >
> >
> Write cycles is fine. What's the Meantime Between Failure (MTBF)
difference
> between a micro drive and a solid state?
>
> I'll take the solid state, thank you.
> --
> Brian Ehni
>
>

The MTBF figures for flash memory do not take into account the fact they
start wear out after only 1,000,000 write cycles. If Joe really is writing a
*lot* of data to it, says thousands of times a day, then the device may only
last a few years. This might be perfectly acceptable, but a hard-disk may
last longer.

Early examples of flash drives were tried as system disks for rugged
computers. They were seen to fail only after a few weeks, because the
operating systems were routinely writing to the disk, even when the machine
was not being used and just idling.

I don't disagree that for sheer ruggedness, a flash drive is going to win,
but it looks to me that Joe is looking more for performance than anything
else, in which case it has to be a microdrive.

On 2/3/05 4:37 AM, in article 4201fd2c_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net, "Stephen
Moll" <stephen.moll@nospam.amsjv.com> wrote:

>
> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BE26E28D.1E037%behni@comcast.net...
>> On 2/2/05 3:49 AM, in article 4200a07b$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net,
>> "Stephen Moll" <stephen.moll@nospam.amsjv.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net...
>>>> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
>>>> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe"
> <joe@joe.puck>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and
> re-writing,
>>>>> then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
>>>>> IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are they safer than Flash?
>>>>
>>>> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
>>>> --
>>>> Brian Ehni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depends on your requirements...
>>>
>>> Joe wants to write and rewrite lots of data, and solid state flash
> drives
>>> have a limited number of write cycles (about 1 million) before the
> memory
>>> starts to wear out. The Micro-drive will have much better longevity in
> this
>>> case.
>>>
>>> If you want something that is robust and better able to cope with knocks
> and
>>> bangs, then its flash memory all the way as you say. Even still, the
>>> micro-drive is able to cope with a ridiculous level of G-shock, 200G
> when
>>> operating and 2000G!!!! when not operating. Typically flash memory
> devices
>>> are quoted as being able to sustain 2000G either operating or not, so
> their
>>> robustness, is only an advantage when in use. So I don't think people
> should
>>> worry too much.
>>>
>>>
>> Write cycles is fine. What's the Meantime Between Failure (MTBF)
> difference
>> between a micro drive and a solid state?
>>
>> I'll take the solid state, thank you.
>> --
>> Brian Ehni
>>
>>
>
> The MTBF figures for flash memory do not take into account the fact they
> start wear out after only 1,000,000 write cycles. If Joe really is writing a
> *lot* of data to it, says thousands of times a day, then the device may only
> last a few years. This might be perfectly acceptable, but a hard-disk may
> last longer.
>
> Early examples of flash drives were tried as system disks for rugged
> computers. They were seen to fail only after a few weeks, because the
> operating systems were routinely writing to the disk, even when the machine
> was not being used and just idling.
>
> I don't disagree that for sheer ruggedness, a flash drive is going to win,
> but it looks to me that Joe is looking more for performance than anything
> else, in which case it has to be a microdrive.
>
>
That may be correct. I submit we don't have enough data.
--
Brian Ehni

In article <BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net>,
Brian Paul Ehni <behni@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe" <joe@joe.puck>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and re-writing,
> > then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
> > IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
> >
> > Are they safer than Flash?
>
> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.

Why's that?

--


----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via UsenetRevolution.com - Revolutionary Usenet
** HIGH RETENTION ** Specializing in Large Binaries Downloads **
http://www.UsenetRevolution.com

Joe a écrit :
> If I need a mini-drive that can do a lot of data-writing and re-writing,
> then should I go with an IBM micro-drive over a USB FLASH... since the
> IBM 1" Micro-Drive is an actual 1" mini-harddisk?
>
> Are they safer than Flash?
>

Safer, 80G, free, infinitely rewritable, reads DVDs, reads/write CDs,
tiny enough to bring anywhere and you don't need any computer to use it:

Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Mini Macs!
I've joined and I think you should as well.
It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given
away $4 million in FREE stuff!
All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends
to do the same. That's it!

Here is my referral link. To help me get my Mini Mac, click this exact
link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser:
http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=14934181

On 2/2/05 9:03 PM, in article BE26E28D.1E037%behni@comcast.net, "Brian Paul
Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2/2/05 3:49 AM, in article 4200a07b$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net,
> "Stephen Moll" <stephen.moll@nospam.amsjv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net...
>>> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
>>> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe" <joe@joe.puck>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
>>> --
>>> Brian Ehni
>>>
>>
>> Depends on your requirements...
>>
>> Joe wants to write and rewrite lots of data, and solid state flash drives
>> have a limited number of write cycles (about 1 million) before the memory
>> starts to wear out. The Micro-drive will have much better longevity in this
>> case.
>>
>> If you want something that is robust and better able to cope with knocks and
>> bangs, then its flash memory all the way as you say. Even still, the
>> micro-drive is able to cope with a ridiculous level of G-shock, 200G when
>> operating and 2000G!!!! when not operating. Typically flash memory devices
>> are quoted as being able to sustain 2000G either operating or not, so their
>> robustness, is only an advantage when in use. So I don't think people should
>> worry too much.
>>
>>
> Write cycles is fine. What's the Meantime Between Failure (MTBF) difference
> between a micro drive and a solid state?
>
> I'll take the solid state, thank you.

The areas of the 'disk' that include the volume information will be
read/modified/written to every time a file is added or deleted from the
device. I don't think a flash drive will last long.

For regular use I would recommend a microdrive or a small external disk
device. For example, the iPod is small, robust, battery powered, supports
both firewire and USB 2.0. In addition to being a very cool music device,
it can be used as a portable external hard drive (its a setting in iTunes).

Of course, there are also less expensive and larger external hard drives
available. I use a 250G 3.5" internal drive in an external drive enclosure
for backups and to share files between my OS X/Windows XP/Windows 98/Linux
boxes. The enclosures are available for less than $40 and the 250G drive
cost about $100 several months ago--I expect the prices are lower now.

- Mike

In article <BE34695C.FC50%mpender********.com>,
"M. Pender" <mpender********.com> wrote:

> On 2/2/05 9:03 PM, in article BE26E28D.1E037%behni@comcast.net, "Brian Paul
> Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/2/05 3:49 AM, in article 4200a07b$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net,
> > "Stephen Moll" <stephen.moll@nospam.amsjv.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Brian Paul Ehni" <behni@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:BE25AED9.1DEBD%behni@comcast.net...
> >>> On 2/1/05 6:12 PM, in article
> >>> joe-2CA95F.18121301022005@news.UsenetRevolution.com, "Joe" <joe@joe.puck>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd trust solid state over a micro drive any day.
> >>> --
> >>> Brian Ehni
> >>>
> >>
> >> Depends on your requirements...
> >>
> >> Joe wants to write and rewrite lots of data, and solid state flash drives
> >> have a limited number of write cycles (about 1 million) before the memory
> >> starts to wear out. The Micro-drive will have much better longevity in
> >> this
> >> case.
> >>
> >> If you want something that is robust and better able to cope with knocks
> >> and
> >> bangs, then its flash memory all the way as you say. Even still, the
> >> micro-drive is able to cope with a ridiculous level of G-shock, 200G when
> >> operating and 2000G!!!! when not operating. Typically flash memory devices
> >> are quoted as being able to sustain 2000G either operating or not, so
> >> their
> >> robustness, is only an advantage when in use. So I don't think people
> >> should
> >> worry too much.
> >>
> >>
> > Write cycles is fine. What's the Meantime Between Failure (MTBF) difference
> > between a micro drive and a solid state?
> >
> > I'll take the solid state, thank you.
>
> The areas of the 'disk' that include the volume information will be
> read/modified/written to every time a file is added or deleted from the
> device. I don't think a flash drive will last long.
>
> For regular use I would recommend a microdrive or a small external disk
> device. For example, the iPod is small, robust, battery powered, supports
> both firewire and USB 2.0. In addition to being a very cool music device,
> it can be used as a portable external hard drive (its a setting in iTunes).
>
> Of course, there are also less expensive and larger external hard drives
> available. I use a 250G 3.5" internal drive in an external drive enclosure
> for backups and to share files between my OS X/Windows XP/Windows 98/Linux
> boxes. The enclosures are available for less than $40 and the 250G drive
> cost about $100 several months ago--I expect the prices are lower now.
>
> - Mike
>

Can you BOOT OS 9 from an iPOD?

--


----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via UsenetRevolution.com - Revolutionary Usenet
** HIGH RETENTION ** Specializing in Large Binaries Downloads **
http://www.UsenetRevolution.com