Well flash storage used in computing is analogous to a hard disk, in that it is used for data and program storage. In that way it’s also analogous to a cassette tape used for mass storage, but you wouldn’t call that ‘memory’.

The term ‘memory’ is widely accepted in computer science as working memory, i.e. RAM.

The two are not interchangeable.

Unfortunately, due to the general dumbing down we see all to often today, the difference is being lost, not helped by journo’s who don’t understand the difference.

I’ve lost count of the reviews for phones, tablets, etc, that state that they have 16,32 or 64GB of memory. That’s incorrect and unfortunately just propagates the misunderstanding leading to confusion for consumers who might not understand the difference between ‘memory’, or RAM and ‘Flash memory’ or mass storage.

In regards to embedded systems, sure I guess you can map flash storage in that way. I’d say it’s only done for convenience sake though as it’s still very much a separate entity . Any data within the flash area would still need to be copied into RAM in order to do any sort of processing/calculations on it.

Well flash storage used in computing is analogous to a hard disk, in that it is used for data and program storage. In that way it’s also analogous to a cassette tape used for mass storage, but you wouldn’t call that ‘memory’.

The term ‘memory’ is widely accepted in computer science as working memory, i.e. RAM.

The two are not interchangeable.

Unfortunately, due to the general dumbing down we see all to often today, the difference is being lost, not helped by journo’s who don’t understand the difference.

I’ve lost count of the reviews for phones, tablets, etc, that state that they have 16,32 or 64GB of memory. That’s incorrect and unfortunately just propagates the misunderstanding leading to confusion for consumers who might not understand the difference between ‘memory’, or RAM and ‘Flash memory’ or mass storage.

It’s obvious that by a “bit of information” the author really meant a byte. That is very sloppy usage, given the technical meaning of a bit, even if it might be reasonable in a more general sense (bit as in a little piece, such as “a bit of cheese”).

I’m curious — why are flash storage devices not “memory”? Do they not remember things? In many embedded systems the built-in flash is even addressed as memory in the main memory space (at least for reads).

In regards to the original article, I think the guy writing it, Neil Shapero, the electronics editor, had a slightly tenuous understanding of the tech.

He apparently has never heard of Manchester encoding, as he erroneously states that data stored on a tape is just the data stored as high and low beeps. Good luck trying to do that without some sort of clock multiplexed in with the data.

Later, in reference to disks he states: “A disc with a radius of only 5-1/4 inches can store about 200,000 bits of information (each “bit” has room for a letter of English).”

Well each “bit” can only be a 1 or 0 so unless you only ever intend to use 2 letters out of the possible 26 available in the English language, oh, and then there’s things like ‘space’ which might come in useful, you’re gonna be SOL.

Unfortunately, very little has change in the tech jurno world. I read several articles every day put out by large news organizations which have pretty obvious errors that anyone with even the slightest understanding of computers would know were wrong.

My pet peev is calling flash storage in devices ‘memory’ or worse ‘RAM’. What hope have lay people reading articles/reviews got if those writing them haven’t got a clue.

1985 Apple //e computer amimation!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbxJajIGBWo

Welcome to the Virtual Antique Typewriter Museum (tags: museum technology tools history interesting steampunk culture typewriter design) GMT: Greenwich Mean Time – World Time / Time in every Time Zone (tags: time interesting science tools web) Modern …

Only the “Striped hills going up and down” were made by my Apple//e, not the jet or paper airplane. They look so cool in color!

No… not real time viewable. It’s been decades, but I think the complicated images took several (10 maybe) minutes per frame.
Uncomlicated; about 10 seconds.

I was able to hold the shutter open as long as needed for multiple color exposures. That also gave me brightness control.

A good analogy would be stop-motion photography.

I switched to a 16mm later.

How would this be done in the present?
Can modern SD memory camcorders even do stop motion? Long exposures?

Theoreticly you should be able to save directly to DVD, even if each frame took hours to render. (Like Shrek)

(No. Save to HD, View/edit, THEN burn to DVD.)

I get enough spam now, a little more won’t hurt.
Here’s my email address, backwards:

ten.sireenoip@151lsj

(Ha! Let’s see the spammers harvest THAT!)

Send me your email address and I’ll email you the CineMagic article, after I scan it.
Mention “Asteroid” in the subject line.

I helped my friends make a Super 8 SciFi movie using it.
I did the 2001-esqe instrument readouts.
Came in 3rd in CineMagics’ Super 8 category in 1983 (or so)

I Googled myself and found this:

http://www.atariarchives.org/c.....p?page=129

Too bad hardly any (none) of the images used in the film appear.

I really, really have to YouTube the movie.

PS: I souped up my Apple with a third party co-processor that came with an AppleDOS patch.
I also purchased a Beagle Brothers (I think) program to draw in the little used HiRes mode.
Surprisingly, I was able to run both at once!

Good times. Good times.

El tiempo pasa… nos vamos poniendo viejos… (vía http://www.boingboing.net/2007....._1982.html)…

In 1982, Popular Mechanics reviewed the top six personal computers, noting that, “It used to be that programs were easy to copy and change. But manufacturers began to lose money as many people made copies of software and gave them to their friends. N…