Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 29th Nov 2005 19:41 UTC
Geeks.com sent us for a review an external hard drive enclosure case, the "TVisto Series 3.5" Multimedia HDD Enclosure" (2.5" series also available). But this is not just another hard drive enclosure, but also a multimedia jukebox. And it's running uCLinux, an embedded version of Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 66723
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Compare 3.5" and 2.5" versions by features
by Eugenia on Tue 29th Nov 2005 21:07
in reply to "Compare 3.5" and 2.5" versions by features"
Member since:2005-06-28
My guess is that because the 2.5" is physically much smaller, they had to use less memory and maybe even less video-related electronics. For example, if the firmware of the 3.5" runs on 4 MBs with two chips of 2 MBs each, they had to run on a single chip of 2 MBs on the 2.5" version. And that would mean only one thing: removal of drivers and code in order to fit on the 2 MBs ROM.
Member since:
2005-10-18
3.5":
# Playback Media Formats Video:
# MPEG-1 (AVI, MPG)
# MPEG-2 (AVI, VOB), ISO
# MPEG-4 (AVI, DivX, DivX VOD, XviD)
# DivX Subtitle:
# SUB (MicroDVD format)
# SRT (SubRIP format)
# SMI (SAMI format)
# Embedded Multiple Subtitle support
# Audio:
# WAV
# MP3
# MPEG-4 (AAC)
# WMA
# AC3
# OGG Vorbis
# Photo:
# JPG baseline and progressive up to 8 mega pixel
# Supported File Systems:
# NTFS
# FAT32
# HFS+
2.5":
# Playback Media Formats Video:
# MPEG-1 (AVI, MPG)
# MPEG-2 (AVI, VOB)
# MPEG-4 (AVI, DivX, DivX VOD, XviD)
# Audio:
# MP3
# Photo:
# JPG baseline and progressive up to 8 mega pixel
# Supported File Systems:
# FAT32 (single or up to 4 multiple partitions)
Isn't the difference a little bit too drastic? Why is format and FS support in the 2.5" version so poor? After all, 2.5" drives, while smaller, obviously have enough capacity to install all necessary software ;-) They could make a much cooler product with 2.5" (the same versatility plus a more compact package), but apparently didn't want that... What's the reason?