Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (19909)	4/3/2001 12:24:45 AM
From: Steve 667	Respond to of 60323

Regarding MMC vs. Flash cards Type i vs. Type 11. Aus, I had been under the impression that Type II Flash Cards used less power than Type I. A factoid which I read in last year's annual report. However I recently reviewed an article by Michael Rubin, Product Manager for Consumer Digital Products, Nikon USA. He had this to say regarding Flash memory for the Nikon 990: "Type II CompactFlash cards (Solid State) use 50% more power and produce more heat than Type I CompactFlash cards of the same size (they have extra chips on a daughter board). Microdrives typically use 8X more power than a Type I CompactFlash solid state card-which is why many camera manufacturers require you to use external power supplies. You will go through batteries like water (including rechargeables). Heat is a killer to any camera-and Type II produces more heat than Type I-reducing the life of your camera (unless adequate space is given-like a D1) and possibly risking your image quality." So the question is; which is correct? Also lets throw MMC into the mix. How does MMC compare, power consumption wise, with Type I and Type II? Also regarding heat, the same question? Other than size, is there an advantage to MMC for camera use in the future, or is there an advantage to using Flash for camera pictures instead? Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Regards, Steve