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.

Non-Tech : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Philip J. Davis who wrote (6708)	1/24/1999 11:35:00 PM
From: rll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Lipo, "First, there aren't any digital cameras out there right now, that I know of, that are compatible with a 96MB flash card. Do you know of any?" No I don't. They are not even available yet. Supposed to be during 1Q99 sometime though. The reason I used the 96MB in the comparison was to show that Allen's claim of x10 price difference is simply not true. To be fair, one must compare apples with apples, wouldn't you agree? "Second, megapixel images don't necessarily have to be >1MB. My Olympus D400Z digicam takes 1280x960 images in low compression that average about 400k in size. Megapixel refers not to the size of an image, but to its resolution. In this case, I can fit 18 megapixel images on one 8MB flash card before I have to offload onto Clik! This translates into 90 megapixel images per Clik! disk." Ok, I chose a 1 MB number to use in the comparison. If you'd prefer using 400kB that's fine with me. The end result is the same. You need to xfer data from the flash to clik! 96MB/8MB times. IMO, a lot of time fumbling around when you could just use a high density flash and be done with it. And you know some of those transfer times will come at inopportune moments. "In any case, it is much more convenient to offload pictures onto a Clik! disk than having to lug around a laptop or go all the way home to offload your pictures." I have to agree with this statement. However, that was not my point. I was comparing using a high density flash card (which would not require any intermediate downloads) instead of a clik drive. This solution also does not require any extra "baggage" which is important to many travelers. "Imagine how long it would take to offload pictures from a digicam onto a laptop. Assuming your estimate of 3-5 minutes for offloading pictures from a flash card with a Clik! drive, how long would it take with a laptop?" Sorry Lipo, I don't understand your question. "With Clik!, this isn't possible. Once completely full, you can't write to a Clik! disk with the flash card reader until you get home and transfer the images from Clik! to your laptop or desktop PC." I stand corrected. That's a nice feature that IOM included. Although, you'd probably still want to mark the disk anyway so that you don't waste more time trying to write data to an already full disk. "Same with regular film." Lipo, are you trying to say that the clik! drive and disks are the same size and weight as regular film? "Here...let me explain: 40MB Clik! disk - $10 96MB flash card - >$300" Please read my post again. Let me also try to explain this another way. Since the clik! disk requires a clik! drive, then you must include it in the cost. It just so happens that the flash card does not require a drive and therefore there is no additional "hidden" cost. "They are already out there. Sony makes the very popular disk-based digital camera called Mavica. And, oh yea...it's got moving parts." Ok, you got me there. Although I was referring to a clik! built-in. I thought that was obvious since the following sentence specified it. Anyways, Lipo and Allen thanks for taking the time to respond. Good luck to all. rll P.S. I don't have a position in IOM or SNDK.