Peter Loveday wrote: > It also really makes me wonder why they do these silly incremental > changes... "2G isn't enough? Lets revise the spec... but we'll only allow > 32G, no one will ever need more than that...." why not just allow for > umpteen terabytes and be done with it (at least for a few years :), if > you're introducing a whole new (semi-incompatible) way of addressing the > card.
Although I do not know answer for this question, I have some exposure to standarization processes. My guess would be that there is some overhead depending on maximum (not actual) card capacity, like: - address lenght that has to be comunicated between card and IO device, (which consumes bandwidth and space on card) - size of table of entries on the card (which consumes space on card) - complexity of additional logic that has to be implemented on card (which costs money) and vendors working on this standard tried to strike balance betweeen useability (eg. capacity, speed) and mentioned overhead. B. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
