How can a micro drive store more data than a compact flash if they are both the same size?

Question

I posted a question about the difference between CF and MD...I was told that MD store more data.

4GB is 4GB...how can one hold more data than the other?

A gallon is a gallon regardless of the shape of the container or the type of liquid it holds.

Answer 1

The two technologies are completely different when you get right down to it. 4G is 4G as you point out, but I think the folks are talking that in the same form factor, microdrives can store more (20G microdrive is planned for 2007). The fact that the microdrive can store more is really a statement that it can store more for less money than the CF version of the same size. I believe that there are 8G versions of both available. http://nanosys1.com/mem-fl-cf-8g.html (price for CF)
http://www.meritline.com/hitachi-microdrive-6gb.html (price for 6G microdrive... didn't see an 8G version on Google or on http://www.flash-memory-store.com)

There are a couple of drawbacks to the microdrives, one is that they require more power and thus may not work in all devices as well as they are mechanical and may have more problems with shock as a result, although the Wikipedia article on them indicates that they are very stable.

The microdrive is a very small version of the hard drive (magetic media) that fits in the same size as a Compact Flash card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdrive

The Compact Flash is just that, flash memory. This is solid state (no moving parts).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_flash

Hope that helps.

Answer 2

Your question made go and look at my two 4GB CF cards. One is a Microdrive and the other is a Sandisk Flash CF card. They both are advertised as 4 gigabytes. There appears to be a slight size difference between the two. The Microdrive looks to be 1,073,741,814 bytes while the CF card appears to be 1,048,576,000. slightly smaller (~25 meg). I realized that the CF card is made of smaller flash memory chips. All are fixed in a base 2 sizing and that there must be area reserved for error correction or spare locations to replace failing cells. This extra reserve area makes some small amount of storage unusable for immediate storage. Both mediums must have extra areas for mapping bad locations out and mapping spare locations in to take the failing memory place. Flash is limited to flash chip sizes. Microdrives must have spare cylinders available by design.

The difference for my camera is 2 raw images more storage for the Microdrive over the Flash card.

Answer 3

The real difference is that CF uses flash memory, and MicroDrive, as its name implies, is actually a miniature hard drive. It used to be that MicroDrives were available in larger sizes than CF's, but flash memory technology has pretty much caught up in terms of capacity. Now the difference mostly lies in the price--large capacity MicroDrives are cheaper than CF's of the same capacity, with the price difference becoming more pronounced the larger the capacity gets.

Answer 4

I concur on each and each of the previous solutions. My boss became interior an same position about a three hundred and sixty 5 days in the past. He offered a microchronic and shot some frames with it. at the same time as he became getting waiting to slide thechronic into his card reader he dropped it a distance of about 6 inches onto the table correct. Say sturdy Bye to the microchronic. A co-worker of mine dropped a CF card on the floor and then drove over it in his truck. He got here upon it went he lower back and slipped it right into a reader and it nevertheless worked effective. That became adequate for me. the fee is dropping to the point the position 4 gig playing cards and uncooked NEF information are a chance for me on a regularly happening foundation. as far as i'm in touch CF is a thanks to bypass.

Answer 5

I don't know the answer, but I'd suggest that you look into read-write speeds of both devices. This can be important in the real world.