Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM 1GB Microdrive Review

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the mucho-space dept.

A reader writes "MP3 Newswire has run a very good review on the 1GB version of IBM's Microdrive. One major improvement the higher-capacity Microdrive has over the older 340MB drive is that it consumes less power (the older drives sucked up the juice). The article covers the normal ins and outs of the product, but also touches on the future. Because flash cards and other competing storage media this small havent reached the 1GB plateau (yet) these drives are good enough to steal a large slice of the MP3 player/PDA/Digital Camera pie by simply slashing prices to allow, say, a tiny 1GB MP3 portable for under $250. "

3 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. They work well but are pretty fragile by Phil+Wherry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've got two of these beasts (as well as one of the older 340M versions) for digital camera use.

    In general, they work pretty well. They're a little bit slower than flash memory, and they use more power--but those are really about the only practical differences under normal circumstances.

    You can hear the disk spinning (and the head actuator operating) if you listen carefully, but it's by no means loud.

    They do demand careful treatment, though. A friend of mine dropped his Microdrive from about waist height onto carpet, and it never worked again.

    1. Re:They work well but are pretty fragile by stripes · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They do demand careful treatment, though. A friend of mine dropped his Microdrive from about waist height onto carpet, and it never worked again.

      On the other hand Bill Biggart (the only PJ to be killed wile covering the towers collapse) had one in his digital camera. It survived, he didn't, nor did the film in either of his film cameras (the backs burst open). So while his ~30 rolls of film taken earlier were good his last surviving pictures were on the 1G microdrive.

      There is a picture of the remains of his camera (on a stark white background) on the cover of the current American Photo magazine. It includes some pretty stunning interviews of a half dozen or so pros that were covering the event.

      It is pretty amazing to read how they were "operating on automatic", and "could barely see the viewfinder through the tears", and look at the same time at the amazingly well framed photos (like James Nachtwey's shot for Time with the building coming down in the background framed against the top of a church and it's cross on page 20).

      A geek should own it just for the machine beat to death on the cover.

      A photo geek should own it for the interviews and pictures.

      Everyone who reads news papers should own it to see how the people that get their pictures risk their lives sometimes for them.

      I can't find the Am Photo cover online, but doing a google search for "Bill Biggart American Photo" does turn up a whole bunch of relevant articles (including a surprisingly good MSNBC one).

    2. Re:They work well but are pretty fragile by stripes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ah, found it, as an added bonus if you read the rest of the thread you get to see me be beaten up for not knowing the difference between a PCB in the camera and one in the lens.