That's guaranteed write speed. Peek speeds are higher, much higher.Wow sounds like USB 1.0 speeds. Here comes the past!
That's guaranteed write speed. Peek speeds are higher, much higher.Wow sounds like USB 1.0 speeds. Here comes the past!
"This time" being last summer, when they started including them in MacBooks?
They don't really need a reason besides pretty much every consumer camera using SD media these days.
+1 That is is kind of "Think Different" Apple should be encouraging!
I was more thinking along the lines of why Apple is suddenly putting SD card readers into several models. They are usually driving new technologies (or ignoring them), not catching up. SD cards have been around for a while now. Why is Apple choosing now to start adding SD card readers. And, in the case of the Mini - on the back.
Cheers
And this is just the front
The seldom used optical drive is on the back. All the useful stuff is on the front.
Rocketman
How beautiful would that be for Time Machine, particularly in a laptop?
I said this a while back. Apple should buy SanDisk, buy Sony, get rid of Ex-FAT and re-package/re-brand/standardize this media in every product they make and package a flavor of it for ROM as a successor to Blu-Ray.
Small, portable, insane storage capacity and Apple could build the format without the insane licensing fees that have been attached to Blu-Ray. Apple is a global company and they want all of their products to be immensely useful globally, unfortunately broadband and internet mean something completely different to everyone, in terms of connection speed, and that will in all likely hood never change. A small disc, slightly larger than a half a stick of gum, that can hold up to 2TB of data potentially is the perfect bridge for every digital device in virtually any form factor.
I really don't get why people who come up with specs don't think ahead. When SD came out it has a 2GB limit. So they updated it, SDHC for a 32GB limit. Now they had to update it again, SDXC for a 2TB limit. They should have just designed the format to scale in the FIRST place.
For example: CompactFlash came out in like 1994 and has scaled all the way up to like 137GB, when the first cards were under 1MB.
Buy Sony?
Look up anything about how both Sony and Apple operate internally and what they do in their respective fields and tell me the facepalm isn't relevant.Look up some numbers please, and then come back with that facepalm...
And this is just the front
Is Apple thinking that SD cards are going to become the new "floppies"?
Many people who exchange files by 'sneaker net' use CDs, but don't need the capacity of a CD. Plus while rewriteable CDs exist, they are pricey and most people don't use them. Most files are exchanged a barely used CD that then gets shelved and collects dust.
Imagine if people started exchanging SD cards. Initially lower capacities only will be available, but soon CD equivalent SD cards will be available, and soon after that the 1 and 2 TB cards.
If Apple can create enough demand for cards, then economies of scale will bring prices down as they become a standard commodity.
As others have mentioned the bigger capacity ones would have all sorts of uses besides the exchange of files. Wow.
Hmm.
Are you living in 2005 or so? Recent SD cards already max out at 64GB. That is already ~100 CDs worth of data.
Are you living in 2005 or so? Recent SD cards already max out at 64GB. That is already ~100 CDs worth of data.
No. The maximum interface speed for SD cards that's UHS-I at 104 MB/s is slower than most SSDs. (Well, slower than SSDs you would want to use as a boot drive.)So can I put one of these new SDXC cards in the back and use that as my boot drive while maintaining the internal HD for data storage?
Would that be better than an SSD?
So can I put one of these new SDXC cards in the back and use that as my boot drive while maintaining the internal HD for data storage?
Would that be better than an SSD?
Sort of.
Lets separate reading and writing exFAT. If I can read it, I can pull stuff off of it. So OS X will require the ability to read exFAT in order to make it compatible with non apple devices that will be using this format. HOWEVER, it is not required that Apple choose to read exFAT. You could format with HFS+. Then any device that can read HFS+ could read and write to it.
If I can write to exFAT, then I can place data (even 4GB+ media files) on the card. Apple may create a driver that allows you to read exFAT but not write to it.
This matters if you are going to use the card to store media files (4 GB+), or are planning on using the card with non Apple devices. I could get a 128 GB SDXC card, format 100 GB in FAT32 for a user directory, and format 3 8GB swap spaces (one for OS X, one for Windows, and one for Unix). Then I'd have my user files and swap space with me wherever I go, and it would be cross platform compatible (everyone reads and writes FAT32). Yes, FAT32 does have a maximum partition size, this is why I used a 128 GB SDXC card as the example. And yes, I wouldn't have my media files (movies) on the card (I'd need one of the 2 TB cards to do this).
Since Pretec is selling an ExpressCard SDXC reader, this is what I plan to do with my triple boot MBP (see sig). I'll point my OS X user directory to the directory that will be on this card, I'll do the same for Win7, and BackTrack. Each OS will also have swap space on the card. This increases security too. If I have my SDXC card with me, someone using the laptop can't see my files at all. It also increases speed (maybe and a little) because I'm using a different storage device and bus to put my user files/swap space on.