From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout.fastq.com ([204.62.193.66]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19Rc1K-0005Ol-Uy for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:27 +0100 Received: from aquaman (foobar@russ.gothicfury.com [65.39.81.227]) h5FIEtV27992 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 11:14:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from Russ.Dill@asu.edu) From: Russ Dill To: manningc2@actrix.gen.nz In-Reply-To: <20030615013104.0663F44BF@blood.actrix.co.nz> References: <20030612163736.CFEC.MINGFENG@linpus.com> <3EE8A3EA.5090001@esteem.com> <20030615013104.0663F44BF@blood.actrix.co.nz> Message-Id: <1055700917.5401.0.camel@russ> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 15 Jun 2003 11:15:17 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: MTD Mailing List cc: Jasmine Strong cc: Conn Clark Subject: Re: MRAM will kill FLASH ? Reply-To: Russ.Dill@asu.edu List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > The biggest hurdle is that this stuff is still not practical for most > applicaions. We're looking at devices of a few MB in 2004, when NAND is > already volume shipping 256 MB. Thus, MRAM will only suite very niche > applications for the forseeable future. correct, right now cypress is shipping 64kb and 256kb units, their marketing angle is for replacement of batery backed sram. -- Russ Dill