Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Memory Card Torture Test

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the kicking-the-tires dept.

309

An anonymous reader writes "Would you buy a Ferrari and put regular gas into it? I don't think so. So why are most of us buying expensive digital cameras and using cheap memory cards? If you want to find out how much better a high speed memory card is, check out this group test of high capacity compact flash and SD cards."

cancel ×

309 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting. (3, Insightful)

JPamplin (804322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762717)

You'd think cards developed to the same spec would have equal performance. Is that really not the case with SD or others? Interesting article.

Re:Interesting. (4, Informative)

Shanep (68243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762792)

You'd think cards developed to the same spec would have equal performance. Is that really not the case with SD or others? Interesting article.

I don't know about SD cards, but CF cards are compatible as IDE devices, which itself has various specs with varying performance. Various PIO and DMA modes, etc. This would be like comparing hard drives and then saying, "You'd think drives developed to the same spec would have equal performance".

Some cards are built using high density, low speed, low durability CF, while others go for lower density, high speed, high durability CF and multiples of them in one card. Some newer fast cards employ DMA modes over PIO. Also don't forget, the spec itself is not always the bottleneck, so individual models can vary in performance up to the limit of the particular spec used.

Re:Interesting. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762809)

Like the spec that says a car has four wheels and steering wheel, yet the performance of a Ferrari is markedly different than that of a Geo?

Most of the specs define physical and electrical characteristics, the speed and performance is somewhat abstracted, the device will tell you when it's done, or when it want more data, and can do so in it's own sweet time.

You pay for performance. The higher performing silicon is available in smaller quantities, and commands a premium. Either because the die operates at the higher end of the bell curve and is bined as faster, or is tested more throughly and vigorously.

Re:Interesting. (3, Informative)

Shanep (68243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762831)

Most of the specs define physical and electrical characteristics, the speed and performance is somewhat abstracted, the device will tell you when it's done, or when it want more data, and can do so in it's own sweet time.

Interface specs usually do define signal rates and word size (for parrallel). So specs usually do define a top speed. Certainly in the case of CF.

(Of course serial interfaces also define word sizes and sometimes allow for various sizes, however that typically does not change the bits/second rate by much, if at all, depending on the spec.)

Re:Interesting. (4, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762951)

Some specs allow for variation in performance. For example, if the raw performance of the memory cells is expected to increase significantly, the spec will be designed to allow for the highest speed expected to ever be achieved (or the highest speed economically feasible), but to allow devices to negotiate a slower speed by doing things such as inserting delays. i.e. the spec defines compatibility and not performance, AS LONG as performance can be negotiated to be the lowest common denominator of two devices.

I have heard stories of some of the highest speed cards breaking in older readers, perhaps the autonegotiation was designed with the assumption that cards would always be slower than a reader's capabilities, or those readers aren't fully meeting the specification and no one noticed.

Rob Galbraith DPI has huge DB of performance (4, Informative)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762721)

The Rob Galbraith DPI website has a huge database [robgalbraith.com] of performance with various cards and various cameras. I use this as a benchmark for deciding when I need a new CF card vs. the Camera I have, and the family of camera I'd love to upgrade too one day.

Re:Rob Galbraith DPI has huge DB of performance (4, Informative)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762823)

Rob's database is also crucial because different cards excel with different manufacturers -- the differing write acceleration specs aren't implemented uniformly.

Regular gas in a Ferrari? (5, Funny)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762723)

You can't put regular gas in a Ferrari?

What's the difference between regular gas and this special stuff? Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?

(These are serious questions ...)

Rich.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762746)

"You can't put regular gas in a Ferrari?" No, most high end cars require preimium gas.

"What's the difference between regular gas and this special stuff?" Premium gas has a higher octane number which prevents pre-detonation, aka "knock", which allows high performance engines to operate at higher compression ratios.

" Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?" No, most every gas station I have been to in my life sells "regular", "silver", and "premium" gas. Have you never bought gas before?

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (0)

Denyer (717613) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762758)

most every gas station I have been to in my life sells "regular", "silver", and "premium" gas. Have you never bought gas before? Probably not in America. Everything at a filling pump is assumed to be of a certain quality over here in the UK.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (3, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762825)

Probably not in America. Everything at a filling pump is assumed to be of a certain quality over here in the UK.

Do you know what the octane rating is for gasoline?

Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates R'chmd wgah'nagl fhtagn.

My goodness. Someday you'll see the light... or the darkness as that may be.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762828)

It's called octane. Has nothing to do with quality.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (3, Interesting)

Smauler (915644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762840)

Probably not in America. Everything at a filling pump is assumed to be of a certain quality over here in the UK.

Erm.... Just about all petrol companies offer different octanes. Standard unleaded in the UK is 95 octane, which is a lot higher than the US I think. BP offer "ultimate", which is 97, Shell offer a 98, and Tesco offer a 99. Most others offer higher than standard octane too - where do you buy petrol?

OT - As an aside to those in the US, it's horribly expensive, £1 per litre, which is about $7 a US gallon if my maths is correct. To fill up my car costs well over the equivalent of $100.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (3, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762886)

Of course you fail to mention that your country is also

a) lot smaller

b) Not trading in USD :-)

c) Full of weird as small cars [not a bad thing though].

I mean for me to drive home to my folks place is equivalent to [roughly] driving entirely from one end of England to the other. And I don't even leave the province I'm in to do my trip!!! Talk to me when you live in a country that is 3000Km wide about the price of gas.

That and yeah, if oil wasn't traded in USD you'd probably have an easier time buying gas. Of course the next logical choice is the euro, not the pound. So you're still fucked.

Tom

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (3, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762916)

Actually, the European and American methods of measuring octane are a little different. The end result is about the same for what you put in the engine.

Europe [type2.com] uses RON, the US uses CLC (RON+MON)/2.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

allusionist (983106) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762922)

Where I live in the US, regular gas (I think it's 87? 88?) is $2.89/ gallon on a good day, up to about $3.05. My car's pretty gas efficient, and I get 300 miles on about $35. My mother's car costs closer to $60 for the same distance.

On the other hand, I'm making about $200/month after taxes. A CD costs me $10-$18, and I can get a good sandwich for $5. All considered, it's not too bad a difference.

Hooray global economy!

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (5, Informative)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763036)

See, that's why in the UK we tend to smile at jokes about us having lots of weird small cars. :-)

Where I live in the US, regular gas (I think it's 87? 88?) is $2.89/ gallon on a good day, up to about $3.05. My car's pretty gas efficient, and I get 300 miles on about $35.

My maths may be off, but that means your car gets 25 mpg. When that answer appeared on my calculator, I literally laughed out loud. In the UK we'd refer to that as rubbish efficiency (trends for ludicrous urban SUV usage notwithstanding). 15 years ago I had an ancient piece of crap Morris Minor [wikipedia.org] that did 35+ mpg, ffs.

My mother's car costs closer to $60 for the same distance.

14 mpg?! Holy crap. What is it, a Chieftain tank?!

Never mind game console standby power usage, get your car manufacturers to sort out their fuel efficiency. If you had to pay UK prices at the pump, I'm guessing that might accelerate the process :-)

Of course, in the UK, the cost of petrol is largely taxation. It's something like 75% of the price, which usually gets people going [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762928)

Gas of that octane here is getting up there in price, but your taxes are a *lot* higher. Regular in the U.S. is always 87 octane, mid-grade is usually 89 octane, sometimes 88 or 90 at some oddball stations, and premium is 91 or 93 octane. Right now in Columbia, Missouri (town of ~90,000 in central Missouri, home to the University of Missouri) 87 octane is $2.79/gallon, mid-grade is $2.79-$2.92/gallon (the 10% ethanol mid-grade is the same price as regular unleaded as there is a lot of ethanol produced here, and the no-alcohol mid-grade is ~$0.10/gal more than regular) and premium is $2.99-$3.02/gallon. Taxes are 38.7 cents/gallon total on gasoline and 41.4 cents a gallon on diesel fuel, which is about $2.90/gallon right now. I have seen 100 octane "racing fuel" sold at some specialty stations and that stuff is about $4-5/gallon.

I am curious as to why the octane is so high on that fuel in Britain. The engines that you use are more or less the same ones we use here and most run fine on 87 octane. (Case in point: The Ford Focus is a popular car here and also supposed to be popular in Europe too, and both run with an identical 2.3L four that runs happily on 87 octane here, according to Ford.) The extra octane should allow your engines to run a much higher compression ratio and/or be supercharged or turbocharged without suffering detonation problems.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762856)

While meeting some minimum standard, is not the same as something that exceeds the standard.

Even in the UK you used to have 2 Star and 4 Star petrol, though I suspect that what you have as Unleaded is more potent and cleaner than the crap we have in the US. Though you are probably paying about $8 a gallon compared to $3.

So you'd want to use 92/93 Octane in the Ferrari, and not the 86/87 Octane stuff. Then again you might want to buy the 100 Octane racing fuel.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762980)

If all your gas is of the same octane rating, and Ferraris work in the UK, you're being screwed.

rj

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (0)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762837)

High octane fuels reduce knock but at the expense of creating carbon build-up, which in turn causes knock.

The rule of thumb when chosing gas is to use the lowest octane fuel available that, when used, allows your engine to operate without knock except occasionally during accelleration and going up-hill. Too high an octane is damaging for your engine in the long run.

The problem is that most people don't seem to know that, and think "High octane" means "High quality". It doesn't. They're all of equal quality, at most gas stations, it's just some older cars require higher octane gas because their engines are have too much carbon build-up, and as such the gas is being compressed to a higher pressure before deliberate ignition.

If Ferraris really "need" higher octane fuel, then that's a deliberate design decision, akin to chosing between diesel and gasoline (which, actually, in some ways is an extreme version of the whole octane thing), not something that's a result of higher octane fuel being better quality.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1, Flamebait)

Riddlefox (798679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762749)

I think they meant, would you put regular (85 or 87 octane) gas into your Ferrari, instead of ponying up the extra 20 cents a gallon for premium (91 or 93 octane).

Higher octane gas resists burning better. In a high compression engine (or a turbo/supercharged engine), the extra pressure can make gas detonate instead of burn. That detonation is bad for the engine. Lower performance engines don't put as much stress on the gasoline, so they can burn lower-octane gasoline. Putting high-octane gas in your low-performance engine doesn't do anything except lighten your wallet.

Read here for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating [wikipedia.org]

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (-1, Offtopic)

aersixb9 (267695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762797)

Engines are metal, and under extreme pressure. Metal does not break, unless you hit it really hard, or heat it up a ton. Putting cheap or expensive gas through an engine does not break the engine. Aside from the parts that break intentionally, such as oil filters and brake pads (that wear out), a car should not break unless you crash it into something, hit it with a bomb, or possibly disassemble it with tools and then reassemble it incorrectly, in such a way that the awesome power generated by the fuel burning inside the engine damages the parts. Even running an engine with no oil in it to lubricate the moving parts and reduce friction will not break metal, it will simply reduce the power and efficiency of the engine. The same goes for the transmission. Metal does not wear out or break, at least not in our lifetimes. Ironically, I tried a variety of gasses in my motorbike, and there didn't appear to be any noticable difference between 85 (en mexico and arizona) and 91. Jet fuel works pretty good, if you have an engine that can withstand the extra heat and force. To get an idea of how powerful the fuel inside the engine is, try pushing a car by hand with the car in neutral...that's how strong the engine is, and how much force is on the parts inside it during normal usage. Of course, there's an easy way to break an engine on a manual transmission, overrev it and the force of the engine breaks itself...otherwise, they're pretty close to indestructable. (Not counting the soft outer paint, which is easily scratched, or the soft fuel tank that is mandatory and explodes.) A turbocharger (actually an air compressor) that injects extra air into the engine, along with fuel injectors that inject extra fuel at the same time does increase the power of the car...but why not just get a 440 stainless turbine engine and put jet fuel in it, then use a standard air intake that is much more effective at higher velocities? Last time I checked, jet airplane gas was $.30 per gallon at the airports. Plus, then you'll have a car that goes 0-600, and can spin the tires against the road at any speed up to ~500...or alternatively, a car that doesn't need refueling for 5000 miles with a bit less power. I assume that turbine engines aren't popular for the same reason metal, non-wearing-out brake pads aren't popular, too...there's only one moving part, they're more fuel efficient that the 4-stroke engine, they're silent when muffled, and easier to muffle, otherwise they're the same loudness as the 4-stroke, easy to manufacture due to the one part, and less prone to break (unless you rev the heck out of them, as always) than the fragile crankshafts and valve stems of the 4-stroke, and the clutch and rev style of the turbine is much more suited to the speed up and slow down style of the roads, since you can go faster on the straight parts of the road, then let the engine spin up while breaking for the turns, then clutch to convert the revs of the engine into rear-wheel power. Of course, a properly sized turbine has plenty of power without clutching, too.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762843)

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your BS, and I hope no one takes it seriously. But, this is a good example of the validity of your posting:

Last time I checked, jet airplane gas was $.30 per gallon at the airports.

You are off by about an order of magnitude. Prices vary according to location, but even the lowest prices are comparable to regular unleaded. For a list of "great deals", see:

http://airnav.com/fuel/greatdeals/ [airnav.com]

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762861)

Metal does not break, unless you hit it really hard, or heat it up a ton.

Which is, as it happens, exactly what happens to your pistons and valves.

Even running an engine with no oil in it to lubricate the moving parts and reduce friction will not break metal, it will simply reduce the power and efficiency of the engine. The same goes for the transmission. Metal does not wear out or break, at least not in our lifetimes.

Oh, hey, that's a good one.

Jet fuel works pretty good, if you have an engine that can withstand the extra heat and force.

Oh, hey, that's a really good one.

I assume that turbine engines aren't popular for the same reason . . . the turbine is much more suited to the speed up and slow down style of the roads. . .

Nearly as good as the jet fuel thingy.

KFG

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762875)

I call BS.

metal doesn't break unless you hit it hard? damn, why didn;t anyone tell that to my prybar? for your information, metal CAN break very easy. example aluminum work hardens, any flexing of the metal causes it to crystalize and it actually gets so hard that it can not bend anymore and it just cracks. steel is almost the same, except it takes heat/carbon content to crystalize the metal, and what is gas... hot burning hydro-CARBONS. feel free to argue with me, i work with steels aluminum and engines for a living. and also running an engine without oil WILL break it, try it and take it apart down to the piston sleeves you will see a lot of scoring and many times even cuts right through the sleeve to the cast block of your engine. not to mention the heat from the friction ( wich the oil helps cool) will warp your engine block causeing your block to warp and gaskets to not fit right anymore.
you did not notice any difference in your bike because it is a low compression engine, try running a low octane fuel through a turbocharged engine once, the fuel will actually explode on the compression stroke before the piston is fully extended on the crank. using a higher octane fuel increases the ignition point of the fuel so that the heat generated by the compression of the air-fuel mix will not ignite it. on your bike i think the compression ratio is probably about 9:1 / 10:1 on a super/turbo charged engine the compression can actually reach as high as 20:1 or higher.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Shanep (68243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762899)

Even running an engine with no oil in it to lubricate the moving parts and reduce friction will not break metal, it will simply reduce the power and efficiency of the engine.

Run a typical combustion engine with NO lubrication and you will get increased friction and thus increased heat and thus eventually a seized engine which might even include pistons which have welded themselves into the cylinder.

Metal does not wear out or break, at least not in our lifetimes.

What the hell are you talking about? I've worked in gear systems with Navy equipment and printers and it was quite common to see metal to metal gears wearing each other out. I often saw metal-plastic-metal gears because it actually increased the life of low-torque gear-boxes and even then only the plastic gears needed replacing. This was done because metal does wear out against metal.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762978)

This is one of the most nonsense posts I have ever seen on Slashdot. Reading it was like reading an article "proving" that the USA never landed on the moon.

Metal doesn't wear out or break? Un-lubricated engines are simply less efficient? Turbines are more efficient than piston engines? (not at partial-loads they're not). Engines are indestructable?

I hope you were trying to be funny.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762870)

Putting high-octane gas in your low-performance engine doesn't do anything except lighten your wallet.

It's either give it to the gas stations a little at a time, or the mechanic that works on your car in one big chunk.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762895)

Actually, high octane gasoline causes more wear-and-tear on your engine than low octane. Higher octane gasoline increases the rate of carbon buildup among other things. So really, it's more like giving to the station a little at a time, and to the mechanic in one big chunk.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (2, Interesting)

austad (22163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763018)

Some engines require higher octane fuel to prevent detonation though. If I put 87 octane in my car and start up my datalogger, I see knock and it kicks the timing back a few degrees to prevent it. The car runs at reduced efficiency. If the timing wasn't backed off it would detonate the fuel, which means it explodes instead of burns. This generates increased temps which can burn holes in the pistons. If it cannot back off the timing anymore, like on a hot dry day, it will start backing off the boost (turbo pressure) from 23psi to something around 14psi.

Putting high octane fuel in your chevy cavalier is a waste of money, but putting it in certain types of cars is a requirement to prevent engine damage.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762953)

Once More:
High Octane Gasoline high quality gasoline. [state.mn.us]

It has been adjusted, usually through adding chemicals, to burn a little slower. Too low of an octane for the engine's compression leads to knocking. Messing with the timing can fix some of this, but not all. Basically, if your car doesn't specify high octane, and it isn't pinging/knocking, you're better off with the cheap stuff. It's what your engine was designed for.

Now, a higher compression engine is more efficient and has more power for the displacement. Thus, it's popular for high end sports cars, planes, and such.

I ended up doing a bunch of research on this because I looked into converting my car to ethanol (with California switching from MTBE, my plans have been delayed. The cost of ethanol has skyrocketed from the increased demand). With a RON of 106 vs. 95 for gasoline, I'd be able to make up the difference in energy density(ethanol has only 2/3 the energy of gasoline) by increasing the compression in my engine by switching out the pistons.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763011)

I ended up doing a bunch of research on this because I looked into converting my car to ethanol (with California switching from MTBE, my plans have been delayed. The cost of ethanol has skyrocketed from the increased demand). With a RON of 106 vs. 95 for gasoline, I'd be able to make up the difference in energy density(ethanol has only 2/3 the energy of gasoline) by increasing the compression in my engine by switching out the pistons.

So what, you get taller pistons, or ones with a different surface shape that makes the space in there smaller ?

There may specifics to all this stuff, but I've blown up enough cars to know life is much easier if you remember it as "It's either give it to the gas stations a little at a time, or the mechanic that works on your car in one big chunk".

Might not work for everyone, but it works for me.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

caseih (160668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762944)

Many high-end engines require the highest octane gas, so you'd likely have to pay for the more expensive gas anway.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (2, Interesting)

archen (447353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762992)

Just to expand a bit...

Actually relating to the ferrari question, if Ferrari tells you to put regular gas and a cup of water into the gast tank, you put regular gas and a cup of water in the gas tank! THEY designed the engine. Back in the 50's engines were so inefficent that it didn't make much of a difference, but with all the sensors, and gizmos on modern engines to get a better burn you need to put the correct octane in your car.

Some engines produce less power if you put a higher octane than the car is rated for because certain calibrations make assumptions about how the gas will burn. Best rule of thumb is to read directions and put whatever the car owners manual tells you to =)

So anyway the correct answer is to do whatever Ferrari tells you to.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Melkman (82959) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762756)

Road going Ferraris indeed use regular fuel. A racing Ferrari, like the F1 cars, is an other thing. They use fuel which is tuned for the specific race they have to run. See http://www.formula1.com/insight/technicalinfo/11/6 46.html [formula1.com] for some more detail. The whole analogy between fuel and memory cards doesn't make sense. Fuel is consumed but cards are used over and over again.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762961)

Not to mention that the worst you generally have to worry about with a cheap card is it failing early or being slow.

Putting regular into a high compression engine can damage it.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

dario_moreno (263767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762827)

well, don't you know that one is supposed to always use bad car analogies in anything related to computers ? More to the point, if you, like many of us can only afford, have a Ferrari that is more than 15 years old (say a Mondial) , it is better to use cheap oil (with characteristics appropriate to the car) than modern, expensive, synthetic oil, which is too fluid.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762829)

Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?

If I spend X hundred grand on a car today, & it doesn't come with a GPS system running on private satelites that automaticly determines the best approved station for me to stop at along my route & adjust my route to get there, I'll fucking strangle someone. :)

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

wonkobeeblebrox (983151) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762909)

> "Would you buy a Ferrari and put regular gas into it?

Actually, I put regular gas in my Ferrari. Works just great.
Everyone once in a while that weird "Check Engine" light goes on. I just ignore it.

Oh wait, I meant that I put regular gas in my Toyota Echo. That works great. Gets 44 mpg winter/39mpg summer (Phoenix resident). I live 7 miles from work. I fill up once a month. I love it.

you joke, but with the F1 car, yes. (4, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762993)

You can't put regular gas in a Ferrari? What's the difference between regular gas and this special stuff? Does that mean when you buy a Ferrari you spend half you life looking for Ferrari-approved filling stations?

Someone (with a lot of money) bought one of Schumacher's old F1 cars and yes, it was contractually required that the car only be run on a specific brand of fuel.

The article summary is pretty oblivious though- you run the octane your car requires, 95% of the time. Gasolene companies love to make you think that filling up your low-compression engine (that requires 89) with 94 octane will make it faster, or "clean" it more. All grades of gas from the same brand have the same level of detergents, generally...furthermore, each kind of detergent is good at removing certain deposits but leaves others, so you're actually best off rotating which brand you fill up with. If you're obsessed about it, just pop in a bottle of Techron cleaner one tank before your next oil-change; it's the stuff BMW, Audi, and others recommend, though they'll charge you a lot more for Techron in a BMW or Audi bottle.) Also, most gas is delivered from port by a distributor that slosh-mixes in a bottle of stuff that "makes" the gas Exxon, Shell, Hess, BP, whatever. When a supertanker crosses the ocean, it doesn't have a "Shell" crude compartment and a "Exxon" crude compartment, etc. It's all the same stuff, a commodity...even though Shell likes to run commercials saying their gas meets manufacturer standards blah blah blah. EVERYONE's gas does, because EVERYONE's gas comes from the same damn crude, gets refined at the same places, and distributed by the same companies.

This is similar kind of "inadequacy" based BS. High end digital cameras have large buffers in part because flash memory is so effing slow; a Nikon D70 has enough buffer for something like 40 full resolution JPEG shots! Running a slow memory card in them won't harm them, damage them, etc etc. There are other factors to consider as well- my canon 10D has a 9 shot buffer for RAW shots, and some sort of in-between buffer for writing them to the card. I used to hit the end of the buffer all the time, because I never noticed that it wouldn't process the buffer while the shutter was held half-down in the focus position. Talk about a design flaw- but knowing that, I kept my finger off the shutter button whenever possible if the buffer had anything in it (displayed in the viewfinder) and the problem disappeared.

As someone who has shot with a semi-pro dSLR for more than two years, I can summarize that article in one sentence: "if you need to shoot images as fast as possible and have a camera with a limited buffer, buy the fastest card within reason, only if Rob Galbraith's tests show it'll make a substantial difference. Otherwise, buy a reasonably heard-of brand with a decent warranty in case it stops working." Why? Because just like with the gas, under the label you'll often find exactly the same thing- and only a very small number of people actually NEED the extra speed of a card that costs 50%+ more.

Oh, last piece of advice: don't buy huge memory cards. Three reasons: 1)you pay more per MB, usually. 2)You put all your eggs in one basket- if you drop a card and step on it, accidentally hit "erase all", or loose it... you get the idea. 3)"Photo tanks" with laptop hard drives offer MUCH cheaper $/GB storage. You could shoot 2,3,4,5GB/day in RAWs on a big vacation and still not fill the smallest of these widgets after a week. Buying one without a drive and putting in the old laptop drive you've got hanging around from an upgrade (provided it's not too power-hungry) is the way to go, as even 30-40GB is a BOATLOAD of space for digital photos.

Oh, and should you be on a trip- bring a few DVD-Rs, and burn the files to one or two if you really want to have the photos. Laptops get stolen/dropped/lost/seized/whatevered, and you can be absent minded / mistake-prone about transferring photos after a week of fun in the sun (aka rm -rf * type mistakes). Put one set in your suitcase, another set in your SO's/friend's/etc.

Re:Regular gas in a Ferrari? (1)

subStance (618153) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763014)

Phtttt ... and you call yourself Rich ...

real rich people know the answers to this stuff.

20 pages of spam (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762732)


this is nothing more than spam, 20 pages of fluff (with 5+ adverts per page) in order to sell a few memory cards on a website called "trusted reviews", yeah right

no wonder digg is getting popular

Re:20 pages of spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762751)

Are you insane? Digg is plagued with SPAM. Its like Slashdot but 10x worse.

what ads? (-1, Redundant)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762766)

I don't see any ads......but I use an ad blocker on firefox ;)

Re:what ads? (3, Funny)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762846)

Why is there always someone who posts this comment. No shit, OMG PONIES firefox has ad blockers.

That doesn't mean putting a single page story on 20 pages is any more enjoyable to read.

You fucking karmatrolls are fucking annoying. You're like the little 6 yr old trying to get the attention of his parents or something. Shut the fuck up already until you have something insightful to say.

Tom

Re:what ads? (0)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763048)

Pipe down, junior.

Not a good test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762735)

Hey, look at that: A 133x card performed faster than a 120x card!

This is stupid. It looks like the readers/writers were tested more than the actual card was. Your analogy is flawed - This isn't a test of the fuel, it's a test of the car.

Continuing the analogy: If you are looking for car performance, what is truly the deciding factor? The gas or the car? I can put jet fuel in my civic, but it won't make a difference - not a positive one, at least. Conversely, my high-performace ducati that supposedly wants 95 octane runs great on the low-octane gas, and has done so without fouling the plugs for over 15k miles. High octane gas doens't make you go any faster, it's just more resistant to pre-detonation.

Re:Not a good test (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762889)

Jrt fuel is not gasoline. The civic probably won't run at all.

I think you might be neaning AVGAS - higfh octane gasoline that is used in piston engine planes.

Always performance, never durability (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762736)

Why does everybody test performance, but nobody tests durability? What good is a ginormous flash card that stores your images in a fraction of a second when it trashes the FAT after some 10000 writes because the flash cells can't take anymore writes. There go the once in a lifetime shots.

Re:Always performance, never durability (5, Interesting)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762764)

If you take 10,000 photos between taking a "once-in-a-lifetime" photo and backing it up onto a tougher media, you pretty much deserve to lose all your work. The biggest loss of digital camera images are caused by loss/theft of the camera, and user error (accidental deletion). Media failure doesn't even register on the scale.

Re:Always performance, never durability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762824)

A 2GB card stores about 250 raw 8Mpixel images. 10000 images means you've filled the card 40 times. Granted, it's not something that a casual photographer needs to worry about, but neither do those users care whether the card writes 5 or 15MB/s. After a couple thousand pictures, safely copied to your computer and backed up, the card will eat all pictures since the last format. If those pictures were the ones where your friend said "yes" to the love of his live, paying attention to the longevity of the storage medium might suddenly seem more important than how fast the card stored the images that are now lost.

Re:Always performance, never durability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15763016)

The 1GB Toshiba SD-Card in front of me which didn't make it to its first birthday does register on my scale.

Re:Always performance, never durability (1)

Shanep (68243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762931)

Why does everybody test performance, but nobody tests durability? What good is a ginormous flash card that stores your images in a fraction of a second when it trashes the FAT after some 10000 writes because the flash cells can't take anymore writes. There go the once in a lifetime shots.

From what I have read, the fast cards are also the most durable. They tend to be made of the single layer CF. It's the really large but slower multi-layer CF which don't last long.

May I put my fast nigga cock into you (-1, Troll)

lennyhell (869433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762739)

Cowboyturd?

19 Pages? (5, Funny)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762753)

19 Pages? Ay Caramba!

Hint: skip to page 18 for the conclusions.

You don't get any more professional than padding your 3 page article to 19 pages with lines like this (from the conclusion):

You could say we tested a number of things.


Yeah, you could say that. One of those things was my patience.

Re:19 Pages? (1)

sam1am (753369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762763)

Yeah, and there's the whole "using a stopwatch to time transfers from the computer to the card" thing..

Re:19 Pages? (1)

n8k99 (888757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762767)

Oi! this article reminded me that I need to export the photos from my camera!

Where's the ad filter for the editors? (5, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762813)

You know, it's interesting, going down this list [slashdot.org] of "trusted reviews." Most are submitted by "an anonymous reader" and none of the reviews are very professional--and they take up page after page in order to increase ad impressions. It's ridiculous! I don't usually take time out to criticize the editors, because it's generally off-topic and for the most part they do a decent job, but let's stop falling for anonymous submitters looking to increase ad impressions, okay? Start by rejecting stories from this so-called "trusted" reviews site.

Re:19 Pages? (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762884)

I thought the sheer number of pages was the "torture test".

Strangely enough, I read 1/19 of TFA.

Why people shop for price (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762757)

When I bought my camera 6 months ago, I searched and searched, and found there was simply no way to know what performance to expect from a given card / camera combination. Labelings like "32x" apparently don't mean a whole lot, the same card doesn't work equally well in all cameras, packaging and labeling are not changed when the card is re-engineered, and there are so many different cards available that no benchmark table is even nearly complete - often there's no overlap at all between the cards used in a benchmark and the cards available from a chosen vendor.

Bookmark this page (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763024)

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp [robgalbraith.com]

'cause it's slashdotted for the moment. The most complete CF / Camera database around (and not limited to 18 words on a page).

Maybe check back tommorrow....

Do they give better colors? (3, Funny)

AmIAnAi (975049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762759)

I'm still waiting for the first review that says a particular card gives warmer colors or cleaner pictures.

Re:Do they give better colors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762769)

I'm still waiting for the first review that says a particular card gives warmer colors or cleaner pictures.

You have to color the card with a green marker to get that sort of improvement.

Re:Do they give better colors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762775)

Why would one card give warmer colors or cleaner pictures? Everybody knows that digital doesn't have these problems. Watch out for jitter though, especially with the bigger CF cards and contacts that aren't oxygen-free.

Re:Do they give better colors? (3, Funny)

mssymrvn (15684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762785)

Only if you purchase my special green marker for $19.99 and write a green line around the edges to prevent electron scattering. Those stray electrons can really show up in photos and you wouldn't want that. You also get higher definition too. Yeah, that's it!

Ugh.

Re:Do they give better colors? (4, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763001)

I'm still waiting for the first review that says a particular card gives warmer colors or cleaner pictures.

That's actually determined more by the USB cable you use. Thinner cables are gonna give you better color rendering. Of course if you work in black and white, it doesn't matter. Go ahead and use the cheap stuff. But with color, you don't want multipath blurring your color signals together. And this gets even more important as you shoot multiple frames per second.

And the same thing goes with your storage media. If you work in high resolution color, you need a RAID. That way, you can spread the put the color streams on different physical media to prevent color-bleed. This is even more critical with digital photography, just a one-bit bleed from one pixel to another can ruin a great photo.

So, by all means, get a cheap card if you are going analog black-and-white. But you get what you pay for if you are shooting high-res digital color.

I dont care for speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762761)

that much. I got a 512SD card in my digital camera and personally dont care if it takes 5 or 10 minutes to copy it all over to the computer. It's not like the card is a huge bottleneck when taking pictures, a second after the click I'm ready to go again. I belive if there was a problem at that end people would care but not when you're just copying them.
Reliability OTOH is a very different deal but I didnt feel like shelling out another 50$ just to get something with a fancy brand on it. My Ultra-X Media Store is still fine after 3 years.

I do (1)

ballermann (124688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762998)

Well in fact I don't care for the transfer speed between camera and PC as well. But the card speed *is* a bottleneck on the camera. Not only does it restrict how fast you can take the next picture (important if you try to shoot a fast moving object) but it also dictates the speed of reviewing the pictures on the camera. Nothing is more annoying than waiting a few secondes between each picture when you want to browse back a few pics.

I bought one of those SanDisk Ultra Extreme cards and never regreted it. A friend of mine bought a cheaper card (probably only half the price) but recently ditched it for the low performance.

As often as it happens... (2, Funny)

dud83 (815304) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762768)

When I buy a Ferrari I usually sell it straight away. Then proceed to buy the latest monster setup from Alienware, take a journey around the world, put half of what is left on a high-interest bank account, and donate the other half to Médecins Sans Frontières or the Red Cross.
So there you have it! :p Straight on topic hehe...

Not a proper torture test I think... (4, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762773)

More of a high end performance test.

There was one proper torture test done by the UK Digital Camera Shopper magazine where they dipped in cola, run through a washing machine, dunked in coffee, trampled and then for sport hit with a sledgehammer and then nailed to a tree. They didn't survive the last two tests though...

Wonderfully resilient stuff I'd say.

Couldn't find the article freely availabe on the mag, just a ref at BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm [bbc.co.uk]

check your speed (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762774)

What blows my mind in this issue is not the memory cards, but the cameras themselves. A friend of mine just bought a new Canon camera. Sorry I don't recall the model, but it was the newest 8 megapixel SLR they had. Nice camera, he paid a lot for it too. It takes full motion movies. He took my advice and got a 1gb card for it. So we take a few movies and some pictures and plug the camera into their new iMac. And wait. and wait. and wait some more. My god, why is this going so slow? It's been 10 minutes and it's not even 10% done!

The computer shows the camera is hanging off the USB FS (full speed, 12mbps) bus. Why? Is there a problem with the computer? Get out the manual for the camera. Oh.. my.. god... the camera is USB full speed, not high speed. (this is a difference between 12 mbps and 480 mbps for USB cable download speed!) I had to look in several places to confirm the horror. What were they thinking? This camera takes 200mb movies. That takes HOURS at that speed to download.

So we shuttle back down to the camera store and bought him a nice firewire card reader. Back home, we dump then entire card in 10 minutes, movies and pictures included.

This is inconvenient but gets the job done. There is simply no excuse to pay thousands for a camera that takes movies, and have the manufacturers shave a little off the price of manufacturing by substituting a slow USB chip in the camera. And that's all it is, one teeny little chip they just picked the slow one over the fast one. (they are functionally interchangeable, there is no need to redesign the camera) At the bulk they buy chips that can't have saved them more than a dollar per unit.

I have owned two Canon cameras myself and then there is this one. They have performed very well in all cases as excellent digital cameras. But incidents like this make me seriously consider changing brands. If that would have been my camera purchase, it would have gone right back to the store where it came from. Go to store, go directly to store, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Re:check your speed (1)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762789)

I have a Cannon digital camera too. Takes great pics, but the USB interface died altogether after about a year. Had to buy a CF card adapter for my PC and load the pics that way.

Re: hate to break it to you... (1, Redundant)

OUWxGuesser (895537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762820)

Hate to break it to you, but DSLR's can't take full motion movies. Second of all, why are you downloading images tethered? Get a usb 2.0 card reader!

Re:check your speed (2, Informative)

Cheile (724052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762848)

You're probably talking about the S3 or S2 as no SLR will do movies as the mirror would have to bounce up and down 24 times a second.

Regardless of which one your friend has it seems to be that the Mac is not correctly identifying it as both the S2 and S3 are USB 2.0 capable. (As are the actual SLR cameras that Canon has).

$.02

Re:check your speed (1)

Bake (2609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762900)

This is finally starting to change.

The relatively new Canon SLR XT [dpreview.com] has a USB 2.0 High Speed interface.

Re:check your speed (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762971)

the newest 8 megapixel SLR they had... It takes full motion movies.

Stop right there... none of Canon's SLRs can take movies. The burst shooting mode has been used to make sort of stop-motion movies, but that's not full motion by any stretch of the imagination. Also, all of Canon's current SLR line has hi-speed USB.

So what camera are you talking about, anyway, since it's obviously not a Canon dSLR?

Re:check your speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762983)

a) As already stated by others, no digital SLR to date has had the ability to record movies.

b) Out of models that are somewhat SLR-shaped, Canon has only one camera in the region of eight megapixels. That is the PowerShot Pro 1.

Hence, you're complaining about a camera that is over two years out of date (announced February 9th, 2004), and whose specifications are clearly listed on Canon's site.

If you can't be bothered to read the specifications and confirm the camera meets your needs before buying it, why should a store have to take it back?

But... (1)

NexFlamma (919608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762777)

The majority of memory card sales go to the general public. The people who have $200 digital cameras and cheap memory cards. These people dont need to down/upload massive amounts of files in which they might actually notice the speed increases shown by these fancy cards.

Sure, they might be useful to high end photogs, but there is a reason they don't sell as well as we all think they should.

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762863)

You have to wonder who's smarter. The average consumer who buys a generic card at the cheapest price (found with a lot of research) or the nerd who buys a ultra high end branded card(found with a lot of research) at the highest possible price. The odds are that the neither will notice the difference in performance given the volume of pictures they take.

It seems to me as if nerds, with a natural ability with details are vulnerable to decommoditization of hardware, something which they're paranoid about in software.

http://www.levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html [levien.com]

The idea is that you can sell a generic performance product $x and a 'high end product for discerning consumers' at $2x. The high end product may actually have a lower performance for price one, but everyone wants to a be a 'discerning consumer', 'early adopter' and so on.

Is there really any difference between someone who willingly overspends by several hundred percent on ultra high end storage devices, so they can transfer the few pictures they take a year a second or so quicker and someone who does the same on sports shoes so they can pose in the mall?

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762885)

Costco which is geared toward the average consumer, sells the Sandisk Ultra II 1GB SD card for $42-47. That is a competitive price for any brand of 1GB card without a rebate attached. A quick scan at worstbuy shows a regular PNY brand 1GB on sale for $30 (I'd bet my left testicle that they are out of stock in the store as all bestbuy sale items seem to be), a PNY "ultra speed" model for $80, and the same Sandisk card at Costco for $75.
There is a wide range of prices at various retailers but you can find a higher speed models in the same price range.

Memory card torture test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762779)

What's that? Barry Bonds in front of a grand jury?

well, SOMEONE has to be held accountable (1)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763041)

It would have to be Barry Bonds. Everyone else gets to plead "classified information" and "national security," which leaves him and Martha Stewart as the only possible criminals in the country, and Martha has already done her time. Plus he's, well, black.

Simple answer (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762782)

"So why are most of us buying expensive digital cameras and using cheap memory cards?"

Because if your camera can write 1MB/s, it doesn't matter if your memory card has theoretical write speed of 1MB/s, 2MB/s, 4MB/s or 10MB/s. You will get 1MB/s of write performance in any case.

It's interesting that they tested memory cards with Canon EOS 1D Mark II camera that costs $3500. I wonder how the results would look if they would've used $350 camera instead.

Meh. (3, Interesting)

Unknown Poltroon (31628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762793)

I was interested in checking out this review, then i saw i would have to page through 20 pages of, well, pages, to make sure i hit their quoat of ads. No thanks, ill read up on fast memory at somone elses site.

Yes, i am aware that half the pages on the internet are like this, and i am also aware that the website owners need to make money. I dont care.

Might not be testing something useful (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762799)

I, personally, buy a camera with the goal of taking good-quality pictures. I buy a memory card with the goal of storing a lot of stuff. I will admit that transfer speed is on the priority list . . . it's just not very high on the priority list. So this isn't anything like "buying a Ferrari and putting normal gas in it". This is more like "buying a Ferrari and eating a McDonald's burger in it". It doesn't have much effect on what you bought the item primarily for.

(I mean, unless you get secret sauce on the seats. I think the analogy's broken down now, though.)

Depends o what you're taking pictures of (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763039)

If you have an SLR and are taking pictures of moving objects, like planes or cars, you're going to be using the multiple capute modes to be taking 5-10 pictures with every button press, and snapping that button like mad as the object flys by.

If you're memory card can't keep up with the camera writing the data, you won't be able to take very many rapid-fire pictures before the buffer fills up. You could miss the best shot because of that.

Not a good analogy (3, Interesting)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762812)

I have an expensive ($800) Digital Rebel XT 8MP camera. It doen't matter how slow of a card I put in it, it works great. It has it's own high speed cache to store like 8 pictures or so depending on settings, and write to the card seconds later. I can easily take a few shots a second, but, it's rare I need to shoot that. While some high end cameras have the write to card weakness, it's certainly not universal among the Ferrari Cameras. Those of you driving around in old yugos might need every bit of speed increase that you can get, you're better off getting a better camera though IMHO.

Pfffffft - Girlie camera (1, Funny)

slightlyspacey (799665) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762903)

Expensive??? At $800??? Do you hear me laugh? I laugh at your little girlie toy camera :):). Now if you want a rather nice 39 MP medium format Hasselblad (H2D-39) [hasselblad.se] , B&H Video has one in stock right now for a bargain basement price of $29,994.95. I'm going to rush right over and pick one up before they run out.

Commodity items (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762814)

> why are most of us buying expensive digital cameras and using cheap memory cards?

Because they do the same thing - store images - only cheaper. I don't care about the speed as long as my camera can talk to it. I don't take many pictures one after the other, and when I do the difference between a few miliseconds or whatever makes no difference to me. Anyway, most cameras, especially expensive ones, have an internal buffer that can handle the difference.

So what's wrong with my camera's recording? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762826)

I know convenience is the only thing I should worry about but my camera's memory has beautiful saturation, 25 million pixels and proven image stability of over one hundred years; all in a package no bigger than a cassette of Kodachrome. Oh, wait...

Crappy review (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762874)

So the review is 19 pages long mixes different incompatible formats.
And doesn't even review the fastest cards on the market. I think they're Sandisk Extreme III, but who knows I haven't seen a review.

I didn't think memory card speed mattered much, but then after playing with a high speed card on my camera it's quite nice to take pictures as fast as I can press the shutter for as long as I want.

Once you get used to taking photos of kids at a few fps, going back to a slower camera and card is quite painful.

My eyes, MY EYES! (1)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762898)

Aaargh..19 small pages, each framed with 3 giant ads..I can't see! I can't read! the noise, the agony! Sorry, had to click away. So, what was the spammers conclusion about memory cards? How many ads can it hold?

Re:My eyes, MY EYES! (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762912)

Apparently his conclusion is he can't run a benchmark.

I didn't read the setup slide [honestly because I skipped to the conclusion] but he probably was testing in windows, with a stop watch and without a ram drive [on a USB 1.0 port...]

Conclusion, don't expect mad speed from SD or CF specially on cards which are max size [where RAID'ing isn't possible].

Tom

Re:My eyes, MY EYES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15762952)

Although not an option with this article, slashdot submitters never submit the "printable" versions of websites. I, too, want to stab my eyes out with a rusty spoon when I see pages like this.

Review sites ... anonymous posters ... (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762926)

Hey, how about this editors...

I'll pay for a slashdot account once you

1. Stop allowing "anonymous" people to post to ad ridden review sites

2. Stop posting stories about ad ridden review sites that split the story to 30 pages

3. Stop even thinking about talking about ad ridden review sites

4. Mirror the occasional real story so we can actually read it the same day the story is posted.

It's called "not selling out". If I give you money I want something of value in return. If I wanted a barrage of retarded stories I'd head to Fark. At least they don't pretend to be a "news" website.

Tom

Re:Review sites ... anonymous posters ... (2, Insightful)

liuyunn (988682) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762966)

at least the whole Ferrari analogy gave a whole lot of people something to talk about

Ferrari (0, Redundant)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15762972)

"Would you buy a Ferrari and put regular gas into it? I don't think so."

Actually, I would.

No Damage Done (1)

onetwentyone (882404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763020)

So why are most of us buying expensive digital cameras and using cheap memory cards?
If I spend a lot of money on a car, different fuel grades will probably do actual damage to the vehicle however, with a digital camera, the memory card isn't going to damage anything. Yes, my picture taking will probably be slower and the memory card might crap out sooner but that's ok as the camera itself is just fine. I can always go out and replace a cheap memory card.

Bad analogy (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#15763044)

The residue of burned gas stays in your engine forever.
If you use a functional-but-slow memory card it doesn't make any permanent changes to your camera.

Does it????

A better analogy:
You wouldn't build a suped-up gotta-access-it-fast file server and run everything off of a single, 1MB-cache, 5400 RPM ATA/100 drive would you?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>