4 ms·
Interesting. This seems to be one of the top requests. Im not quite sure how that would look like. Because there are only so many different capacities (1/2/4/8.
by no_gravity 13y ago
Interesting. This seems to be one of the top requests. Im not quite sure how that would look like. Because there are only so many different capacities (1/2/4/8...GB).
Here is a try to make the y-axis strictly capacity based:
http://things.gnod.com/flashdrives/#y=gb http://things.gnod.com/flashdrives/#y=gb
Do you think this is better?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kaoD 13y agoUnfortunately, that still shows some 64Gb drives higher than 128Gb ones.
- no_gravity 13y agoYes, thats a different issue. All I changed in the y=gb chart is the meaning of the y-axis. You cannot perfectly sort things in a grid.
- largote 13y agoNot being able to rely on the graph being properly sorted makes it a bit useless...
- ynniv 13y agoYeah, that's more useful. Making them not overlap causes some strange positions, but this organization makes it easy enough to find different tradeoffs. If I want a very large drive, I recognize that it will not be as price efficient, and a look to the upper right. If I want a price efficient drive, I follow the left contour until I find the size I want. If I have too much money, I follow the right contour.
- rout39574 13y agoNo. It looks better initially, but it misses the point. When you move your mouse normal to the axis marked "capacity", all your data points should have the same... capacity. So they should all be 32G, 128G, whatever. If you decide you want to spread them out, sure. But I shouldn't move my mouse down from a 128G drive, and find I'm on a 32G drive.
- largote 13y agohave hte y-axis be log2 of the capacity?