?

Log in

Don't take this tablet - Off in the distance
browse
my journal
links
May 2016
 

The Bellinghman
Date: 2012-06-28 12:56
Subject: Don't take this tablet
Security: Public
Oh Google, why? Why is there no SD slot of any form in the Nexus 7 tablet?

You did this on the Nexus S phone. Which is why I didn't buy one of those, and went for the Samsung Galaxy S II instead.

You did this on the Galaxy Nexus phone. Which is why I won't buy one of those.

And now you've done it on the Nexus 7 tablet. I don't think I'll be buying one of those either.

Please don't skimp on storage, even if some other manufacturers do. I will not buy something that tops out at a mere 32 GB - I've got that much filled on my Galaxy S II phone's external card.

Yes, I know, I know, Apple don't do it. But you shouldn't copy their bad habits. This is one of the reasons they never get my money.
Post A Comment | 10 Comments | Share | Link



oldbloke
User: oldbloke
Date: 2012-06-28 12:03 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Please don't skimp on storage


640k is enough for anybody
Reply | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2012-06-28 12:29 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
*snort*
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



nojay
User: nojay
Date: 2012-06-28 13:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've got a couple of questions for tablet and phone makers.

1. Why aren't they implementing SDXC slots instead of sticking with the SDHC format which limits out at 32GB? 128GB SDXC cards are available at not-implausible prices and 64GB SDXC cards are quite affordable, although micro and mini-format SDXC are still price premium.

2. Why only one slot, especially if micro-SD is the preferred card geometry? A 7" or 10" tablet could have 4 or more u-SD slots with little or no extra circuitry (either multiplex signal switching or even parallel access with more signal overhead -> RAID 1 or even RAID 5).

It might be that they are holding off releasing this sort of option as part of a forced-upgrade marketing strategy; Oh noes! Our old Shiny! doesn't have multiple SD card capability and new Shiny! does! Must Buy Now! but I reckon someone would have pulled the trigger on this by now if that were the case.
Reply | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2012-06-28 13:45 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
SDHC - FAT32.
SDXC - exFAT.

The latter has been locked down hard with Microsoft apparently even refusing to release system specifications. And they've patented it. (Which seems incompatible with the refusal to release specs)

As I understand it, you can use SDXC cards in the supposedly SDHC limited devices, so long as you reformat them to FAT32 ...

... using a third-party application, since MS Format has an artificial cap of 32GB for FAT32.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



nojay
User: nojay
Date: 2012-06-28 13:52 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
"... using a third-party application, since MS Format has an artificial cap of 32GB for FAT32."

Sure about that? I remember sorting a problem for a Mutual Friend of ours who couldn't FAT32 a disc because he is a committed Applehead whereas the MS format operation allowed me to format the disc to, as I recall, over 100GB in FAT32. I did have to use some magikal command-line switches though as I recall, but no third-party hijinks required.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2012-06-28 14:11 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Aha. Checking indicates that it's (a) removable drives, and (b) via the Windows GUI. So you may be able to format something larger using the command line.

The downside is the 4GB individual file size limit. Which is a bit of a bummer when looking at video.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Autopope
User: autopope
Date: 2012-06-28 17:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
In any event, Android is based on a Linux kernel. It should be quite easy to add support for NTFS, HFS+, or ext3/ext4 on SD cards (as in: just recompile the kernel with those FSs enabled, then look in the Android layers for any FS-type dependent stuff, such as ACLs or access permissions).

It's about bloody time someone kicked the camera vendors into upgrading to a filesystem that is (a) widely supported, (b) open (as in: not owned by one company), and (c) able to efficiently handle a large number of files and/or large video files.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



nojay
User: nojay
Date: 2012-06-28 18:38 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
And when Joe Schmoe tries to copy ext4 or ReiserFS files from his camera to his MS laptop or desktop (still 90% plus of the installed market), what happens?

Some users will go on the internets and find themselves on a Whinux forum where their requests for advice will be met by abuse, vituperation and a series of line-noise command-line entries "which will fix the problem for you, really" while the debate degenerates into a five-cornered fistfight between assorted distro-boosters. The survivors will look around for a camera or other digital device that Just Works with Win7 and vow never to go anywhere near "open source" stuff ever again.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



The Bellinghman
User: bellinghman
Date: 2012-06-29 12:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
That's the purview of the import program. My Nikon has a special program for my Windows PC that imports the images - there should be no need for anyone to go near Linux if they don't want to.

You just call the card an OCF (Open Camera Format) card. All cameras start supporting that media format, and the image import programs include media formatters that provide this extended capacity for whatever physical format the actual card is (CF/Sony/SD/Whatever). After a while, it settles down the same way that phones and tablets are settling down to using micro-USB connectors, and we can all go off and tend our unicorn herds.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



nojay
User: nojay
Date: 2012-06-29 13:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
A lot of photographers use SD card readers to copy images from their camera to their computers. That assumes the computer's OS can understand the file system on the card as it appears to the computer as simple removeable media. An OCF card would require a specialist program which might not be loaded on the computer most conveniently to hand at the time.

Adding in yet another layer of complexity with a "OCF" file system which is not supported by older computer OSes rather than the existing situation of out-of-the-box FAT32 and/or exFAT is probably not going to fly. There is no real pressure on SD card makers from the ten thousand or so Linux desktop users around the world for SD card file systems to move to ext3/ext4 or whatever the hobbyist developers decide is better next week (I've not heard much about ReiserFS recently for some reason). Compare that with the hundreds of millions of desktop and laptop systems out there right now that can read and write FAT32 natively on removable media.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link