CES '09: 100 HD Movies on a Stamp-Sized Chip

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Kevin Parrish
Contributor

Kevin Parrish has over a decade of experience as a writer, editor, and product tester. His work focused on computer hardware, networking equipment, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, and other internet-connected devices. His work has appeared in Tom's Hardware, Tom's Guide, Maximum PC, Digital Trends, Android Authority, How-To Geek, Lifewire, and others.

  • "Yeah baby. Portable porn just got easier!"

    Brilliant writing, pure journalism...
    Reply
  • shachar2
    sd association is short sighted again and limits the future generation of SD cards to only 2TB.

    there's already a 1.5TB HD on sale by seagate 2TB limit isn't a sight to the future but solving a problem on the short run

    sd association sucks someone should be fired for this joke
    Reply
  • knightmike
    The memristor prototype by HP can store 100 GB per square centimeter and is 1/10 the speed of DRAM. Look up memristor on wikipedia for more information.
    Reply
  • Mishiza"Yeah baby. Portable porn just got easier!"

    Brilliant writing, pure journalism...
    I agree;Highly unprofessional!
    Companies should instantly fire an employee like that if they care about their appearance to the outsider... I mean, this is not a blog or forum where you would expect such a comments...
    Reply
  • JTWrenn
    Shachar2, you just compared a single SD chip to a hard drive....that is just plain stupid. You never need the same storage space on an SD as you do on an HD. Setting their sights any higher would be pointless and probably impractical price wise for this standard. Considering right now they only make 32gb chips, what makes you think they can make a 2tb right now? It will probably take them quite a while to make the 2tb chip so the idea that it should be higher is just stupid.

    Right now the maximum storage for a single chip device is 32GB. In 2003 the largest HD (that I can find at least) was 300gb. So over 5 years the HD increased 5 times over. If that holds true for the SD chip (which it won't, I am sure it will grow faster but still) Then we should have 160GB chips in 5 years....oh now we better increase that 2TB limit.

    The chips will need to grow to 46 times their current density before running into this problem. That is 9 times faster than HD growth was, with a lot less room to work in.

    So, judging by history...I think we will be just fine.
    Reply
  • shachar2
    JTWrenn while I understand your argument I'm talking about the current sdxc STANDARD. a standard should have room to grow and not be limited, while 2TB seems a really high capacity right now in a few years as always been the case it won't

    I've been in the industry for more then a decade now and the thing I've learned is that capacity always becomes the bottleneck and small as other technologies progress onwards

    while a 2TB SD card won't be available for the time being a STANDARD should have enough room to grow and not be limited and changed every few years, that is what I don't understand about the SD Association and their desicion making.

    Best Regards
    Shachar2
    Reply
  • Dekasav
    They have a square inch (give or take). And you think that increasing the size 46 times is too little? In electronics things move fast, and more often are multiplicative rather than additive, but to increase something 46 times over takes several years, at least.

    We now have 4Gb sticks of DDR3 RAM, I'm not aware of anyone who makes an 8Gb stick. 1/46th of 4Gb is ~64Mb. How many years ago was it that the biggest RAM stick you could buy (with infinite $) was 64Mb. I know it was more than 10 years ago, my Dell purchased in 1998 had a 64Mb stick.

    Sure, we'll reach the 2Tb capacity, will it be in "a few years", 3-4 years isn't THAT long. Maybe, but I doubt it. Either way, they'll just change the standard. There may be some significant electronic or exFAT reason for the 2Tb. It's not likely they just picked an arbitrary amount.
    Reply
  • mdillenbeck
    ProDigit80I agree;Highly unprofessional!Companies should instantly fire an employee like that if they care about their appearance to the outsider... I mean, this is not a blog or forum where you would expect such a comments...
    Hmm, over the last few months of reading, I assumed that Tom's had intentionally shifted from news article format to just a blog - after all, most of their articles now seem to be stating opinion and informal statements like the one in this article.

    Perhaps someone at Tom's would like to comment on whether they are a news media source or blog?
    Reply
  • wonton04
    ProDigit80I agree;Highly unprofessional!Companies should instantly fire an employee like that if they care about their appearance to the outsider... I mean, this is not a blog or forum where you would expect such a comments...
    Well what can we do to stop this? Can we edit it?
    No...we cant...I guess we're going to have to grow a sense of humor...
    *sigh
    Reply
  • Zoonie
    LOL @ the porn comment. Nowadays it feels like they give journalist jobs to kids fresh out of high school.

    Ooh THG of the 90's, how we miss thee.
    Reply