In need of a CF to 1.8 zif

I cant find this adapter....i got the compact flash 16gb 300x already .....

but its useless coz i cant find the adapter....

anyone got any idea where to buy it in singapore or indonesia?

any help would be really appreciated thnx ))

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/SSD-flash-adapt...ryZ41994QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


tons on ebay

 

hey, where did you get your 16gb 300x? im from sg also..
btw, ive seen many in ebay, but not in local store..ill try and check in simlim tower for a zif to cf adaptor

 

i got mine in Sim Lim square ....store name is memory world 4th floor...transcend compact flash 16gb 300x .... price is SGD 332 ( including gst )

the cf to 1.8 zif is very hard to find ;/

plz update me if u can find.... ill be really really grateful

or maybe if someone can help me buy from ebay

thnx

 

check this site:

http://www.dealextreme.com/search.dx/se ... 0ide%201.8

5.30$ US for adapter... check other, sata/2.5" and other type of adapter with cheap CF card also... I buy many time with paypal on this site, very good. Sometime stock are very cheap, you must be carefull.

Remi

 

im gonna get mine on ebay..

 

Read the spec on that CF to ZIF adapter:

Fully compatible with Compact Flash Type I, Type II and Microdrive

Just be certain it's compatible with the faster cards otherwise it might hobble the speed.

 

thanks for the addon tip..

 

I'm assuming you guys are looking to replace the stock SSD w/ the CF you are buying... What goals are you trying to accomplish by doing this? Storage capacity, speed, or both? Since I'm not a computer expert, I asked a friend if he knew of Compact Flash being used as a replacement hard drive... he told me that the CF would not make a good hard drive because it lacks the cache and other functionality that makes hard drives work well as a secondary storage device... due to this, he expected the performance would drop if someone swapped this in for that purpose (even though the current SSD may be slow).

Does anyone else think that using CF as a replacement for the SSD is a good idea? bad idea? why?

Thanks in Advance!

 

I sort of assumed it's a bad idea, based mostly on the same line of reasoning you mentioned here. Also, I'm not sure if the expected lifetime is as long, or if the wear-leveling logic is as good on the CF, if it exists at all. None of this is based on hard fact... but those are the sorts of things I'd want to look into before considering using CF as a main storage device.

 

compact flash to replace the hdd ... L2 cache and all that is processor not hdd

default hdd is only read 24x write 7x ... if you replace with 300x ... it would really boost your ONE performace

everything including the OS is stored on the hdd...it only serves as a storage...the processor and mb reads and writes data from the hdd and with only 7x speed thats crap

all that clock speed L2 cache is processor

 

Hard drives (and other forms of mass storage) have a cache as well, sometimes called a buffer:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/understanding-hard-drive-performance,1557-5.html

And I know what you're referring to with 300x, but I'm not sure where you got 24x and 7x. I don't think you're comparing apples to apples there.

 

yes hard disk have cache BUT NOT solid state hard drives and compact flash ( they dont need one ) DMA = direct memory access....Flash memory is non-volatile computer memory that can be electrically erased and reprogrammed

the reason hard disk have cache is to speed the process of read and write...the comp searches the cache first then the hard disk ( so the fingers do not have to travel here and there just to get the data you want ) this applies to normal hard disk

these types of hard disk are bottle necks in a pc....therefor nowadays the solution is SSD ( solid state hard disk ) the default in acer aspire one is SSD

when i said write read 24x write 7x ... thats because i read somewhere ... someone benchmarked it....they also managed to install OS X in the ONE....i forgot where is the link though ;(

 

I would dispute that. I know I've heard references to cache on SSDs. It may not be on all of them, and it may serve a different purpose than HDD cache, but it's there at least on some SSD devices.

Though I can't find where you got the numbers, I think what you mean is 24MB/s read and 7MB/s write speed, which is not the same measurement system as the "x" designators (300x/233x/etc) used on CF cards.

Don't get me wrong... those are still pretty slow speeds for the SSD. I'm still not convinced that CF is a sure winner though.

 

Ok first im not very good in my english so people might misinterpret.... i mean there is no caching in flash memory BUT you can however make the flash memory a cache

and sorry i mis explained here... i mean the read 24x and write 7x is not the SSD....i mean its the default aspire one using benchmarking tools ( i really forgot where i see that though )

http://download.intel.com/design/flash/ ... 319965.pdf this is the full spec of intel z-p230 the SSD aspire one used ... it had read speed of 35mb and write speed of 7mb BUT that is only ( targeted ) in the real apply the benchmark is only 24mb and 7mb ..... and as you can see the spec from intel has no where saying about cache

Ok the MAIN POINT here is because someone was worried about changing the SSD because it might affect the L2 cache....then i explained that L2 cache is processor and not SSD

HDDs have cache and that is correct ...but aspire one dont use HDD INSTEAD it uses SSD ... thats not the case with flash memory (compact flash)....the reason we want to change it to compact flash is because it has faster read and write speed
http://www.cyberindian.net/2008/05/21/t ... lash-card/

SSD uses static or dynamic random access memory instead of flash memory

compact flash uses flash memory which is a non-volatile computer memory that can be electrically erased and reprogrammed...

Intel Z-P230 SSD dont use cache http://download.intel.com/design/flash/ ... 319965.pdf .... it has no where mentioning about cache

 

The lifetime should not be an issue as CF is using the same basic technology as the existing SSD. Also flash cells last a long time these days.

As far as the cache is concerned, again that is unlikely to be a big issue. All Unix systems (which of course includes Linux) cache data themselves so the cache in the HDD is not a big benefit. I am less familiar with Windows so this may be less true.

In addition, do you even know that the existing SSD has a RAM cache? I haven't heard that is does and my bet is that it doesn't.

I have been running various Linux distros from USB flash disks (which should not be materially different to using CF) for years and with the recent ones, they are faster than 2.5" HDDs let alone the slower 1.8" ones.

 

Yeah, I get that, but I've also read about SSDs actually having a cache of some sort. As I recall, the purpose was to get the write speeds up closer to the read speeds. But that may well be only for high end SSDs (or maybe it was only an experimental feature), and the one in the A1 is certainly not high end.

Thanks for the link. I'd agree that it doesn't look like the A1's SSD has any sort of cache.

That must be where the confusion started... I don't see anyone mentioning L2 cache besides you.

 

ooops LOL yes i read wrongly ... its not L2 cache that was mentioned.... sorry my bad hehe ...