30 Jan
2014
30 Jan
'14
11:01 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Jules Richardson
<jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> wrote:
Has the world moved on from CF? I always thought that
was supposed to be a
bit easier to interface to - i.e. SCSI->IDE bridge, IDE-CF adapter, done.
Maybe there are just various gotchas that make SD more attractive?
SD takes fewer pins and has a smaller form factor. I think CF is
regarded as easier to work with from a software perspective, and the
connections are straightforward.
IDE-CF is easy because it only requires a passive wiring adapter.
There is no ancestor of SD that lets you just "plug it in". You have
to have a working SPI bus and all the code to twiddle the bits.
I'm sure SD sockets are cheaper than CF sockets as well.
I wouldn't mind an inexpensive SCSI-IDE interface, but if I'm going to
put FLASH on it anyway, I'm not bothered by it being CF or SD - it's
invisible to the user at that point.
I do have a box of IDE-CF adapters (and a box of 4MB and 20MB CF
cards) and I do use them, but this is a fine solution using today's
parts.
-ethan