Memory = RAM
Storage = Drive space
The article wrongly uses these terms interchangeably, something I might expect my wife's Uncle Charlie to do, but not a tech site.
That's not really accurate. It's an informal convention you're referring to. We often say 'memory' when we mean primary storage, and we just as frequently use 'drive' when we mean secondary storage, because of the physical implementations we became familiar with as computers gained traction modern culture.
Memory is storage. "Memory" and "storage" can be used interchangeably when used properly. We typically (and informally]) use "memory" to refer specifically to a computers primary storage space, but this is not an absolute definition, as it's just as correct to call secondary storage device an external memory device.
RAM is an acronym for "Random Access Memory", which simply declares a particular characteristic of the memory [storage] in question. A delay line is most certainly not random access, but was in use as primary storage (or memory) in computers over half a century ago (look up UNIVAC for an example - I think).
"Drive" is also frequently misused, as it most accurately describes the access control mechanism with which the data contained in/on a piece of storage media is read or written (for a basic example, consider: a floppy 'drive' has zero storage space without a disk in it).
The solid state semiconductor "drive" [secondary storage] used in the iPhone is composed of what are usually described as memory cells. In fact it is physically much more similar to the volatile RAM used in contemporary computers, than it is to the magnetic disk media it serves to replace. So really, "memory" is an apt name/descriptor for the physical storage device described as well.
(Anyone feel free to correct me anywhere I've goofed.)
I believe there is a file manager interface, but yeah most Android phones seem to have abandoned the split storage option. Without rooting or doing anything special most phones can read USB pen drives and the like so that is a pretty good solution for storing big films and similar if you are away from a big screen for a while.
I think most people wants things to be simpler, but I do also recognize how file managing is an important aspect of desktop computing that mobile computing wants to get rid of. As a long time Mac OS users, I'm accustomed to browse my HD and install or launch apps from the file manager. But most windows users have never opened their Program Files directory or even browse their C: drive. I think this is why Apple, Google and Microsoft chooses to not lets people manually manage files on their mobiles devices.
Have you ever heard of Poe’s Law? It says that, without context, the writing of fanaticism cannot be distinguished from that of parody.
He’s parodying the insane few who actually believe the things written there. He doesn’t himself.
We’re pretty sure, at least. He might have stock and be upset at the fall, but other than that it’s all parody.
Huh? I don't understand what the usage of ext4 filesystem helped anything about the hurdle of managing files between multiple volumes on a devices without a file manager interface.
"Hurdle"? "without a file manager interface"? The first is an exaggeration, the second is just plain incorrect.
The solid state drive you refer to, may use memory cell storage but these cells are not addressed in the same way as RAM. The interface that communicates with storage memory is file system block/sector based, not direct addressable, therefore these types of memories are much more akin to traditional HDD than RAM.
I think you're confused. If you want to install a file manager, it's just an app, you don't need root.
I'd contend that file management isn't so much an important aspect of desktop computing as a holdover from an era when it was a necessary liability (compromise) to make computers usable.
The question is: why, in a modern operating system, do we need to "manage" the data like that at a high level? If I can fire up an application, and the application will tell me all the chunks of data ("files") that it knows how to manipulate, and even filter what it presents to me based on arbitrary criteria, then what advantage is there in me putting one chunk in directory X and another chunk in directory Y?
What we really want (and one thing the notion of 'managing' documents in particular directory structures desperately, but incompletely, tries to address) is to be able to apply meaningful meta-characteristics to the the data. File systems already do that to a certain extent with the timestamps built into the node structure, or the addition of file extensions tacked on to file names by applications.
For example, for the most part, Joe User isn't interested in the jpeg-formatted image data in a directory at /users/joe/documents/images/2012/mexico/ - what he really wants is the pictures from his 2012 vacation in Mexico. If he can open up an image viewer and type "Mexico 2012" to get what he's looking for, this is vastly more usable than memorizing that arbitrary pathname (and what's worse, that path may change over time as his collection of files changes). It's irrelevant where the data is physically located on a storage device, or even what storage device it's located on, only what the data is is.
Maybe Jane Photoshopwhiz is on the job, and needs to retouch the images from client "XYZ" she received on June 31st via email - she isn't interested in ~/desktop/photoshop/XYZ corp/recent/email revisions/*.png. If she can pop open photoshop and type in "XYZ June 31 email" to get exactly what she needs thanks to intelligent automated tagging (like automatically tagging the png's attached to an email from [email protected]XYZ.com with the received date/time, that the document source was an email attachment and possibly a cross-refence to the source email file), then she doesn't need to spend her billable hours fiddling with "managing files".
Add in some user-facing tagging abilities, and this gives us much more control in "managing" how we access the data. It's a far more usable solution than trying to shoehorn data chunks into a contrived tree structure.
Another major facet of the file management abuse we've trained ourselves to rely on is for versioning or backup purposes. Im my line of work, we don't make a change to anything without being able to immediately roll back to a previous version in case something isn't right with the modifications. But manually versioning files by changing file names or directories (a.k.a. "file management") is sloppy, inefficient and prone to user errors. Why manually (and possibly wrongly) apply arbitrary file name or directory changes that when the alternative is simply having a mechanism whereby saving a document/file (i.o.w. "committing a change") can store the changes as a delta to the previous version (making it more storage efficient) and provide a convenient hook for the aforementioned automated tagging system to work its magic.
What think us on this?
I understand this, but my comparison was intended to highlight the low level physical characteristics of the devices - a semiconductor versus a magnetic platter. It would seem I was not clear expressing myself with respect to the intent of the comparison. A failure on my part.
The original post I responded to was highlighting a perceived misuse of the terms "memory" & "storage", perhaps the comparison was not as useful as I thought it may be. However, as I also pointed out, linear access (as opposed to random access) storage devices have been used as "memory" (primary storage) making the access characteristics not a fundamental defining aspect of the system.
teaearlegreyhot wrote: »
It's time the manufacturers began placing the OS (and add-ons like bundled skins, mandatory software, etc.) on a separate chip, and leave the entire 16GB (or whatever is advertised) available for the user. And whichever maker does this first can brag that they're offering TRUE specs in their advertising.
Alas, they never did this in 25 years of microcomputer sales, so I doubt it will happen with smartphones.
I don't think they're interchangeable at all, in fact the only times I hear people say "memory" when they mean storage is in error, i.e. they don't know what they're talking about. (NOT saying you don't!
Memory = RAM which is used temporarily by the OS and Applications as they are actively running, which is emptied when the device is off.
Storage = Storage space which your apps and data persistently whether the device is on or . I would never refer to this as "memory" as it's easily confused with the above.
Maybe, am I? I haven't check on Android, but security on iOS and WP8 don't lets apps fooling around outside their sandboxes. If find it troubling if Android really lets any apps doing so.
But this wasn't the point, most people doesn't manually manage their files, and Android like any other mobile OS are design to avoid file managing.
I think there is a generation misunderstanding here. Mass Storage is a kind of memory like the CD-ROM and WORM acronym pointed out. RAM can be a storage too with ramdisk apps, same as ROM can be paged like ram or access like a volume by the hardware.
moderne computer as a lot more memory types than RAM and Storage alone. Register, Caches, VRAM, Pram, Firmware... are all differents type of memory present in all computer and mobile devices. Question is more if the OS see it as a volumes or not.
No, that's precisely my point, that the common usage is as the original poster indicated, but technically, storage is memory. I absolutely agree on the possibility for confusion when you're not speaking in clearly defined terms. The issue is that the original poster was contending on the merits of the technical meanings, as implied by the statement referring to the article as being authored by a "tech site", and not by (the ostensibly technically less inclined) "wife's Uncle Charlie". If I'm completely wrong on this, I withdraw the entire line, but it seemed to me that was the intent.
From a technical standpoint:
Even if you're referring to primary memory/storage, the memory space typically directly accessible by the CPU, but not an integral portion of the CPU, "memory" != RAM if for no other reason, because the "memory" does not imply a random-access characteristic. It may very well be, depending on system architecture, linear-access memory (or LAM, if you prefer ) is used for this purpose - as per my UNIVAC example.
As for the characteristic that the RAM is emptied once the device is off - that's not an inherent characteristic of RAM either. Any PC you yank off a shelf today will likely use volatile RAM for primary storage. This does in fact lose it's state at some point shortly after power is removed from the circuits. However, there are systems (or subsystems) that use non-volatile primary storage precisely because it does not lose it's state (well, not immediately, more on the order of 10 years-ish) and doesn't have to be re-initalized on every power-up of the system. In fact, you'll even find (NV)RAM is in PC's used to maintain data for low-level hardware functionality (think MAC address).
All of my ranting aside (and now that I've typed all this):
I think I've already contributed enough to the derailing of the thread, so I'll drop it as of now. If anyone wants the last word, feel free, I won't argue.
RAM is memory allocated to I/O processes of the CPU. Storage is space! Whether, it is an HDD, Flash memory or SD memory. It is used to "Store" data in it's digital form. Whether it is an .exe or jpeg file, it is a digital representation of that file. Applications then read that "file" and convert it to a image or an executable binary image in the cases I described as digital files.
RAM = Random Access Memory for temporary bit data thoughput.
Storage = Dive space available to store digital form data. (1's and 0's)
16 gigs of storage, refers to how much storage is installed on the system prior to OS install and 2 gigs of RAM refers to how much Random Access Memory is available for the CPU to use for temporary bit data throughput usage and storage. You can't save a copy of tree.jpg in the system RAM.
Masters in Computer Science - UC Berkely class of 79
AI didn’t do the testing, but you’re right here. Thing is, the very existence of the other models makes Samsung look idiotic.
Also not a point in the favor of either company. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Talk about false.
Except they are.
Except it doesn’t. It’s really simple to understand. Go read about the products.
Any PC you yank off a shelf today will likely use volatile RAM for primary storage.
Wait, are you saying you also refer to volatile RAM as "primary storage" for a PC? GoodGrief indeed.