Kingston CF/4GB card

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Harry Bennett, Nov 23, 2006.

  1. Hi all, I need your help.

    I need a particular type of Kingston CF/4GB card for a project and
    unfortunately they are no longer produced.

    The card I need can be identified by the part number on the back
    9930610-001.A00LF or 9930610-002.A00LF. If you have any of these cards
    please contact me, harryb at syport dot co dot uk. as I will either buy
    them from you or swap them for the latest version of this card.

    Thanks to all

    Harry

    harryb at syport dot co dot uk.
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Harry Bennett

    Mark² Guest

    Harry Bennett wrote:
    > Hi all, I need your help.
    >
    > I need a particular type of Kingston CF/4GB card for a project and
    > unfortunately they are no longer produced.
    >
    > The card I need can be identified by the part number on the back
    > 9930610-001.A00LF or 9930610-002.A00LF. If you have any of these cards
    > please contact me, harryb at syport dot co dot uk. as I will either
    > buy them from you or swap them for the latest version of this card.
    >
    > Thanks to all
    >
    > Harry


    Interesting. What exactly is the difference, and why does it have to be
    that EXACT card?

    Curious...

    -Mark²

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
    news:MRm9h.2599$:

    > Harry Bennett wrote:
    >> Hi all, I need your help.
    >>
    >> I need a particular type of Kingston CF/4GB card for a project and
    >> unfortunately they are no longer produced.
    >>
    >> The card I need can be identified by the part number on the back
    >> 9930610-001.A00LF or 9930610-002.A00LF. If you have any of these cards
    >> please contact me, harryb at syport dot co dot uk. as I will either
    >> buy them from you or swap them for the latest version of this card.
    >>
    >> Thanks to all
    >>
    >> Harry

    >
    > Interesting. What exactly is the difference, and why does it have to

    be
    > that EXACT card?
    >
    > Curious...
    >
    > -Mark²
    >


    They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer cards you
    cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they cannot be
    used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.

    In all normal applications the new and old cards work the same, it is
    only when you need to write a master boot record or partion table that
    you see the difference and the new cards do not work.

    It is not only kingston cards that have this problem, all the new cards
    that I have tested have this problem. However the only cards that I can
    identify that do work are the kingston cards that I used for development
    earlier this year and thus those are the ones I want to use.

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 23, 2006
    #3
  4. Harry Bennett

    Mark² Guest

    Harry Bennett wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
    > news:MRm9h.2599$:
    >
    >> Harry Bennett wrote:
    >>> Hi all, I need your help.
    >>>
    >>> I need a particular type of Kingston CF/4GB card for a project and
    >>> unfortunately they are no longer produced.
    >>>
    >>> The card I need can be identified by the part number on the back
    >>> 9930610-001.A00LF or 9930610-002.A00LF. If you have any of these
    >>> cards please contact me, harryb at syport dot co dot uk. as I will
    >>> either buy them from you or swap them for the latest version of
    >>> this card.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks to all
    >>>
    >>> Harry

    >>
    >> Interesting. What exactly is the difference, and why does it have
    >> to be that EXACT card?
    >>
    >> Curious...
    >>
    >> -Mark²
    >>

    >
    > They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer cards
    > you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they
    > cannot be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.
    >
    > In all normal applications the new and old cards work the same, it is
    > only when you need to write a master boot record or partion table that
    > you see the difference and the new cards do not work.
    >
    > It is not only kingston cards that have this problem, all the new
    > cards that I have tested have this problem. However the only cards
    > that I can identify that do work are the kingston cards that I used
    > for development earlier this year and thus those are the ones I want
    > to use.
    >
    > Harry


    Thanks. That's interesting. I'm sure there are very few users that need
    this distinction, but it's too bad that it is causing a problem for you. I
    wonder why they changed...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 23, 2006
    #4
  5. Harry Bennett

    Guest

    Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > Harry Bennett wrote:
    > > They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer

    cards
    > > you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they
    > > cannot be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.
    > >
    > > In all normal applications the new and old cards work the same, it

    is
    > > only when you need to write a master boot record or partion table

    that
    > > you see the difference and the new cards do not work.
    > >
    > > It is not only kingston cards that have this problem, all the new
    > > cards that I have tested have this problem. However the only cards
    > > that I can identify that do work are the kingston cards that I

    used
    > > for development earlier this year and thus those are the ones I

    want
    > > to use.
    > >
    > > Harry

    >
    > Thanks. That's interesting. I'm sure there are very few users that

    need
    > this distinction, but it's too bad that it is causing a problem for

    you. I
    > wonder why they changed...
    >

    <snip>

    Perhaps to prevent accidental changes to block 0 which I suspect would
    render it unusable -- unless / until you had the capability of
    restoring it.

    GG
     
    , Nov 23, 2006
    #5
  6. In article <Xns9884D209B993harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    >They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer cards you
    >cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they cannot be
    >used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.


    I do hope you are kidding. I just 'discovered' IDE to CF adaptors, and
    they sound like a great way to replace the harddisks in various 'embedded'
    PCs.

    I am also not aware of any text in the CF standards that allows this
    behavior. So that would render the cards in violation of the
    standard.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Nov 23, 2006
    #6
  7. (Philip Homburg) wrote in
    news:nsre6drs7fnubcg33kdc1dok61@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net:

    > In article <Xns9884D209B993harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    > Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    >>They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer cards
    >>you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they cannot
    >>be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.

    >
    > I do hope you are kidding. I just 'discovered' IDE to CF adaptors, and
    > they sound like a great way to replace the harddisks in various
    > 'embedded' PCs.
    >
    > I am also not aware of any text in the CF standards that allows this
    > behavior. So that would render the cards in violation of the
    > standard.
    >
    >


    Nope, I am not kidding. Using SATA to CF adaptors the old cards can be made
    bootable using Win 2000, the newer cards from several manufacturers cannot
    be made bootable. Everything loads except the MBR.

    Have just spent considerable time with variouss technical supports trtying
    to resolve this without sucess, especially as we now have hardware to ship
    that will not boot.

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 24, 2006
    #7
  8. Harry Bennett <> wrote in
    news:Xns98852643B6094harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2:

    > (Philip Homburg) wrote in
    > news:nsre6drs7fnubcg33kdc1dok61@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net:
    >
    >> In article <Xns9884D209B993harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    >> Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    >>>They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer cards
    >>>you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they
    >>>cannot be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.

    >>
    >> I do hope you are kidding. I just 'discovered' IDE to CF adaptors,
    >> and they sound like a great way to replace the harddisks in various
    >> 'embedded' PCs.
    >>
    >> I am also not aware of any text in the CF standards that allows this
    >> behavior. So that would render the cards in violation of the
    >> standard.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Nope, I am not kidding. Using SATA to CF adaptors the old cards can be
    > made bootable using Win 2000, the newer cards from several
    > manufacturers cannot be made bootable. Everything loads except the
    > MBR.
    >
    > Have just spent considerable time with variouss technical supports
    > trtying to resolve this without sucess, especially as we now have
    > hardware to ship that will not boot.
    >
    > Harry
    >


    Perhaps I should elaborate.

    You can make the newer cards bootable if you format them using NTFS.
    However they are not reliable when formatted with NTFS and there are
    frequent ( or too frequent for us ) failures with minor disk corruption
    that does not seem to occur when formatted using a FAT format.

    We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a variety of
    disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install CD. Nothing
    that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux on the cards as
    the system requires Win 2000 or better.

    There is some suspicion that they can be formatted as FAT using Win XP
    SP2 but the disk cloning programs / Install disks work at a lower level
    and fail.

    For all 'normal' operations the newer cards are fine, it is only when
    trying to use them as boot devices that they fail.

    Kingston techincal support tried to be helpful but they claimed "we
    usually do not support our flash cards as mass storage drives but only as
    removable storage" therefore our use is outside they way they think the
    cards should be used and is thus un-supported.

    The manufactures of the SATA - CF adaptor cannot find a solution either,
    the best that they have done is possibly identified a certain 2 GB part
    that may work but we need a larger device.

    It is one of those strange situations when newer is not better and if
    anybody can help I will be very grateful.

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 24, 2006
    #8
  9. Harry Bennett wrote:

    > We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a
    > variety of disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install
    > CD. Nothing that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux
    > on the cards as the system requires Win 2000 or better.


    There's nothing wrong with going with a two CF solution. Use and older
    smaller card with your favorite bootloader on it and have it mount the
    second larger card. It's kind of a half-assed way of doing it, but it will
    get you going. Old CFs are dirt cheap in 100 piece lots on the surplus
    market.

    Give a look at the Addonics CF adapters as they are more reliable, but won't
    help your present problem.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 24, 2006
    #9
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in
    news::

    > Harry Bennett wrote:
    >
    >> We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a
    >> variety of disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install
    >> CD. Nothing that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux
    >> on the cards as the system requires Win 2000 or better.

    >
    > There's nothing wrong with going with a two CF solution. Use and
    > older smaller card with your favorite bootloader on it and have it
    > mount the second larger card. It's kind of a half-assed way of doing
    > it, but it will get you going. Old CFs are dirt cheap in 100 piece
    > lots on the surplus market.
    >
    > Give a look at the Addonics CF adapters as they are more reliable, but
    > won't help your present problem.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >
    >


    It is the Addonics CF adaptor I am using !!

    Yes the fall back is to use two CF cards or to go for a 'proper' solid
    state IDE disk.

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Harry Bennett

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:27:48 +0000 (UTC), Harry Bennett wrote:

    > The manufactures of the SATA - CF adaptor cannot find a solution either,
    > the best that they have done is possibly identified a certain 2 GB part
    > that may work but we need a larger device.
    >
    > It is one of those strange situations when newer is not better and if
    > anybody can help I will be very grateful.


    Do non-CF cards also have this problem? There are now 2GB xD
    cards that presumably will work in existing xD <> CF adapters. I
    haven't seen any, but have been told that SD <> CF adapters also
    exist. If SD cards also won't work, perhaps the new HCSD cards are
    sufficiently different that they might allow access to block 0.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 24, 2006
    #11
  12. Harry Bennett wrote:

    > Yes the fall back is to use two CF cards or to go for a 'proper' solid
    > state IDE disk.


    I guess my next question would be what exactly are you trying to accomplish
    and what hardware are you presently using? What type of environment is this
    being deployed in? I'm assuming harsh since you seem to want to avoid using
    2.5" HDs. Is minimal cost a factor? Though off topic for this group, you
    will find a vast wealth of knowledge here. Detail it and I'll bet you get a
    solution from someone very quickly.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 24, 2006
    #12
  13. Harry Bennett

    Matt Ion Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Harry Bennett wrote:
    >
    >> Yes the fall back is to use two CF cards or to go for a 'proper' solid
    >> state IDE disk.

    >
    >
    > I guess my next question would be what exactly are you trying to accomplish
    > and what hardware are you presently using? What type of environment is
    > this being deployed in? I'm assuming harsh since you seem to want to avoid
    > using 2.5" HDs. Is minimal cost a factor? Though off topic for this group, you
    > will find a vast wealth of knowledge here. Detail it and I'll bet you
    > get a solution from someone very quickly.


    Can't offer any further insights, but I am finding this a really interesting
    discussion... please, do continue it here :)
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 24, 2006
    #13
  14. Harry Bennett

    Guest

    "Harry Bennett" <> wrote in message news:Xns98852D3ECE60Fharrybsyportco@213.210.46.2...
    > Harry Bennett <> wrote in
    > news:Xns98852643B6094harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2:
    >
    > > (Philip Homburg) wrote in
    > > news:nsre6drs7fnubcg33kdc1dok61@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net:
    > >
    > >> In article <Xns9884D209B993harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    > >> Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    > >>>They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer cards
    > >>>you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that they
    > >>>cannot be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.
    > >>
    > >> I do hope you are kidding. I just 'discovered' IDE to CF adaptors,
    > >> and they sound like a great way to replace the harddisks in various
    > >> 'embedded' PCs.
    > >>
    > >> I am also not aware of any text in the CF standards that allows this
    > >> behavior. So that would render the cards in violation of the
    > >> standard.
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > > Nope, I am not kidding. Using SATA to CF adaptors the old cards can be
    > > made bootable using Win 2000, the newer cards from several
    > > manufacturers cannot be made bootable. Everything loads except the
    > > MBR.
    > >
    > > Have just spent considerable time with variouss technical supports
    > > trtying to resolve this without sucess, especially as we now have
    > > hardware to ship that will not boot.
    > >
    > > Harry
    > >

    >
    > Perhaps I should elaborate.
    >
    > You can make the newer cards bootable if you format them using NTFS.
    > However they are not reliable when formatted with NTFS and there are
    > frequent ( or too frequent for us ) failures with minor disk corruption
    > that does not seem to occur when formatted using a FAT format.
    >
    > We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a variety of
    > disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install CD. Nothing
    > that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux on the cards as
    > the system requires Win 2000 or better.
    >
    > There is some suspicion that they can be formatted as FAT using Win XP
    > SP2 but the disk cloning programs / Install disks work at a lower level
    > and fail.
    >
    > For all 'normal' operations the newer cards are fine, it is only when
    > trying to use them as boot devices that they fail.
    >
    > Kingston techincal support tried to be helpful but they claimed "we
    > usually do not support our flash cards as mass storage drives but only as
    > removable storage" therefore our use is outside they way they think the
    > cards should be used and is thus un-supported.
    >
    > The manufactures of the SATA - CF adaptor cannot find a solution either,
    > the best that they have done is possibly identified a certain 2 GB part
    > that may work but we need a larger device.
    >
    > It is one of those strange situations when newer is not better and if
    > anybody can help I will be very grateful.


    How many manfucturers have you tried? E.g. I know for a
    fact Samsung won't (or rather /can't/) impose this block 0
    restriction, since they're the primary CF supplier to the
    embedded system industry.

    Have you tried Sandisk? Transcend?
     
    , Nov 24, 2006
    #14
  15. Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in
    news::

    > Harry Bennett wrote:
    >
    >> Yes the fall back is to use two CF cards or to go for a 'proper'
    >> solid state IDE disk.

    >
    > I guess my next question would be what exactly are you trying to
    > accomplish and what hardware are you presently using? What type of
    > environment is this being deployed in? I'm assuming harsh since you
    > seem to want to avoid using 2.5" HDs. Is minimal cost a factor?
    > Though off topic for this group, you will find a vast wealth of
    > knowledge here. Detail it and I'll bet you get a solution from
    > someone very quickly.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >


    Hi Rita,

    Yes you guess right.

    It is a data collection system developed using COTS ( Commercial Off The
    Shelf ) equipment to operate in a high shock / vibration environment.

    The developemnt has being going on for about 9 months during which we
    have designed and proved all the components to the required shock /
    vibration levels.

    For information a 2.5 HD, nominally a 'high shock' unit did not survive a
    1/4 of the levels we are testing to. Dont be fooled by the shock ratings
    quoted by manufacturers, there are two factors that have to be
    considered, the G level and the duration and although many units quote
    high G levels the quoted duration is very short. What you have to
    consider is the total displacement during any shock / vibration event
    which is a function of the double integral of the shock level over the
    duration of the event.

    The requiement is for an operating system that will support the Win32
    API, i.e. Win 98, Win 2000 or Win XP,

    As I said earlier our fall back is to go for an industial embedded solid
    state Hard drive but this is not a cheap option, espcially when you
    consider that we will have to re-qualify everything again because of the
    major component / design change.

    We have tried oursleves four different manufacturers over the last 6
    weeks, all without sucess and Addtronics can only seem to find one card
    that will work and this is only 2 GB.

    This thread is one solution we are pursuing as if we can get even a small
    quanity of the older cards we will be OK on this project and can design
    round it for any new project.

    Thanks for all your interest and I hope that anybody else considering
    using CF adaptors as boot devices will be aware of this problem.

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 24, 2006
    #15
  16. ASAAR <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:27:48 +0000 (UTC), Harry Bennett wrote:
    >
    >> The manufactures of the SATA - CF adaptor cannot find a solution
    >> either, the best that they have done is possibly identified a certain
    >> 2 GB part that may work but we need a larger device.
    >>
    >> It is one of those strange situations when newer is not better and if
    >> anybody can help I will be very grateful.

    >
    > Do non-CF cards also have this problem? There are now 2GB xD
    > cards that presumably will work in existing xD <> CF adapters. I
    > haven't seen any, but have been told that SD <> CF adapters also
    > exist. If SD cards also won't work, perhaps the new HCSD cards are
    > sufficiently different that they might allow access to block 0.
    >


    We have not tried anything other than CF cards at present as these are what
    have been qualified for this project, more detail in reply above.

    Thanks

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 24, 2006
    #16
  17. "" <> wrote in
    news:Adx9h.15350$:

    > "Harry Bennett" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns98852D3ECE60Fharrybsyportco@213.210.46.2...
    >> Harry Bennett <> wrote in
    >> news:Xns98852643B6094harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2:
    >>
    >> > (Philip Homburg) wrote in
    >> > news:nsre6drs7fnubcg33kdc1dok61@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net:
    >> >
    >> >> In article <Xns9884D209B993harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    >> >> Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    >> >>>They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer
    >> >>>cards you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that
    >> >>>they cannot be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.
    >> >>
    >> >> I do hope you are kidding. I just 'discovered' IDE to CF adaptors,
    >> >> and they sound like a great way to replace the harddisks in
    >> >> various 'embedded' PCs.
    >> >>
    >> >> I am also not aware of any text in the CF standards that allows
    >> >> this behavior. So that would render the cards in violation of the
    >> >> standard.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > Nope, I am not kidding. Using SATA to CF adaptors the old cards can
    >> > be made bootable using Win 2000, the newer cards from several
    >> > manufacturers cannot be made bootable. Everything loads except the
    >> > MBR.
    >> >
    >> > Have just spent considerable time with variouss technical supports
    >> > trtying to resolve this without sucess, especially as we now have
    >> > hardware to ship that will not boot.
    >> >
    >> > Harry
    >> >

    >>
    >> Perhaps I should elaborate.
    >>
    >> You can make the newer cards bootable if you format them using NTFS.
    >> However they are not reliable when formatted with NTFS and there are
    >> frequent ( or too frequent for us ) failures with minor disk
    >> corruption that does not seem to occur when formatted using a FAT
    >> format.
    >>
    >> We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a
    >> variety of disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install
    >> CD. Nothing that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux
    >> on the cards as the system requires Win 2000 or better.
    >>
    >> There is some suspicion that they can be formatted as FAT using Win
    >> XP SP2 but the disk cloning programs / Install disks work at a lower
    >> level and fail.
    >>
    >> For all 'normal' operations the newer cards are fine, it is only when
    >> trying to use them as boot devices that they fail.
    >>
    >> Kingston techincal support tried to be helpful but they claimed "we
    >> usually do not support our flash cards as mass storage drives but
    >> only as removable storage" therefore our use is outside they way they
    >> think the cards should be used and is thus un-supported.
    >>
    >> The manufactures of the SATA - CF adaptor cannot find a solution
    >> either, the best that they have done is possibly identified a certain
    >> 2 GB part that may work but we need a larger device.
    >>
    >> It is one of those strange situations when newer is not better and if
    >> anybody can help I will be very grateful.

    >
    > How many manfucturers have you tried? E.g. I know for a
    > fact Samsung won't (or rather /can't/) impose this block 0
    > restriction, since they're the primary CF supplier to the
    > embedded system industry.
    >
    > Have you tried Sandisk? Transcend?
    >
    >


    We have tried Kingstion, Sandisk and a 2 Gb Fujifilm. We belive that
    Addonics have tried the whole range. More details in thread above.

    Thanks

    Harry
     
    Harry Bennett, Nov 24, 2006
    #17
  18. In article <Xns98852D3ECE60Fharrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    >You can make the newer cards bootable if you format them using NTFS.
    >However they are not reliable when formatted with NTFS and there are
    >frequent ( or too frequent for us ) failures with minor disk corruption
    >that does not seem to occur when formatted using a FAT format.
    >
    >We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a variety of
    >disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install CD. Nothing
    >that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux on the cards as
    >the system requires Win 2000 or better.


    I don't anything about the boot process of Win2k. However, certainly
    for Linux you have to be able to partition the drive (which requires
    writing to MBR). Other operating systems (such as *BSD) have their
    own disklabels in addition to the partition table, so they can probably
    be made to work.

    >Kingston techincal support tried to be helpful but they claimed "we
    >usually do not support our flash cards as mass storage drives but only as
    >removable storage" therefore our use is outside they way they think the
    >cards should be used and is thus un-supported.


    I guess you have to report the low level error you get to them and
    claim that they violate the CF specs and are there engaged in false
    advertising.

    It doesn't matter how it is intended to be used, if you claim to implement
    a standard, you have to adhere to that standard without making random
    changes.

    What I don't understand is the why part. What would cause MBR corruption
    often enough that it is worth breaking a standard?


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Nov 24, 2006
    #18
  19. Harry Bennett

    Guest

    "Harry Bennett" <> wrote in message news:Xns988554DAC10Eharrybsyportco@213.210.46.2...
    > "" <> wrote in
    > news:Adx9h.15350$:
    >
    > > "Harry Bennett" <> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns98852D3ECE60Fharrybsyportco@213.210.46.2...
    > >> Harry Bennett <> wrote in
    > >> news:Xns98852643B6094harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2:
    > >>
    > >> > (Philip Homburg) wrote in
    > >> > news:nsre6drs7fnubcg33kdc1dok61@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net:
    > >> >
    > >> >> In article <Xns9884D209B993harrybsyportco@213.210.46.2>,
    > >> >> Harry Bennett <> wrote:
    > >> >>>They have changed the memory controller chip and in the newer
    > >> >>>cards you cannot write to block 0 of the memory. This means that
    > >> >>>they cannot be used as boot devices for embeded computer systems.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I do hope you are kidding. I just 'discovered' IDE to CF adaptors,
    > >> >> and they sound like a great way to replace the harddisks in
    > >> >> various 'embedded' PCs.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I am also not aware of any text in the CF standards that allows
    > >> >> this behavior. So that would render the cards in violation of the
    > >> >> standard.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> > Nope, I am not kidding. Using SATA to CF adaptors the old cards can
    > >> > be made bootable using Win 2000, the newer cards from several
    > >> > manufacturers cannot be made bootable. Everything loads except the
    > >> > MBR.
    > >> >
    > >> > Have just spent considerable time with variouss technical supports
    > >> > trtying to resolve this without sucess, especially as we now have
    > >> > hardware to ship that will not boot.
    > >> >
    > >> > Harry
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Perhaps I should elaborate.
    > >>
    > >> You can make the newer cards bootable if you format them using NTFS.
    > >> However they are not reliable when formatted with NTFS and there are
    > >> frequent ( or too frequent for us ) failures with minor disk
    > >> corruption that does not seem to occur when formatted using a FAT
    > >> format.
    > >>
    > >> We have tried many ways to get these cards to work including a
    > >> variety of disk cloning programs and loading each one from an install
    > >> CD. Nothing that we can find will work. We have not tried using Linux
    > >> on the cards as the system requires Win 2000 or better.
    > >>
    > >> There is some suspicion that they can be formatted as FAT using Win
    > >> XP SP2 but the disk cloning programs / Install disks work at a lower
    > >> level and fail.
    > >>
    > >> For all 'normal' operations the newer cards are fine, it is only when
    > >> trying to use them as boot devices that they fail.
    > >>
    > >> Kingston techincal support tried to be helpful but they claimed "we
    > >> usually do not support our flash cards as mass storage drives but
    > >> only as removable storage" therefore our use is outside they way they
    > >> think the cards should be used and is thus un-supported.
    > >>
    > >> The manufactures of the SATA - CF adaptor cannot find a solution
    > >> either, the best that they have done is possibly identified a certain
    > >> 2 GB part that may work but we need a larger device.
    > >>
    > >> It is one of those strange situations when newer is not better and if
    > >> anybody can help I will be very grateful.

    > >
    > > How many manfucturers have you tried? E.g. I know for a
    > > fact Samsung won't (or rather /can't/) impose this block 0
    > > restriction, since they're the primary CF supplier to the
    > > embedded system industry.
    > >
    > > Have you tried Sandisk? Transcend?
    > >
    > >

    >
    > We have tried Kingstion, Sandisk and a 2 Gb Fujifilm. We belive that
    > Addonics have tried the whole range. More details in thread above.
    >
    > Thanks


    P.122 of the CF spec v4.0:
    http://www.compactflash.org/cfspc4_0.pdf
    has some relevant info. Good luck in your search.
     
    , Nov 24, 2006
    #19
  20. Harry Bennett wrote:

    > Yes you guess right.
    >
    > It is a data collection system developed using COTS ( Commercial Off
    > The Shelf ) equipment to operate in a high shock / vibration
    > environment.
    >
    > The developemnt has being going on for about 9 months during which we
    > have designed and proved all the components to the required shock /
    > vibration levels.
    >
    > For information a 2.5 HD, nominally a 'high shock' unit did not
    > survive a 1/4 of the levels we are testing to. Dont be fooled by the
    > shock ratings quoted by manufacturers, there are two factors that
    > have to be considered, the G level and the duration and although many
    > units quote high G levels the quoted duration is very short. What you
    > have to consider is the total displacement during any shock /
    > vibration event which is a function of the double integral of the
    > shock level over the duration of the event.


    I can understand this. This is a problem and was a problem before CF was
    ever invented. This problem was overcome by iTronix with their use of Viper
    PCMCIA HDs in their ruggedized laptops and test sets, which are still in
    service today. They mounted the HD in an extremely soft silicone gel.
    These were so shock resistant that you could literally pound railroad spikes
    in with this laptop. Though a good solution, it would set you back due to
    re-qualification.

    > We have tried oursleves four different manufacturers over the last 6
    > weeks, all without sucess and Addtronics can only seem to find one
    > card that will work and this is only 2 GB.


    Have you tried SimpleTech? They seem to be more oriented to the OEM
    industry than Sandisk or Kingston.

    http://www.simpletech.com/oem/flashdiskmodule/

    Take a look at their site and see what you can come up with. Their CFs look
    very promising for your application since they claim an "ATA/True IDE"
    interface in the specs.

    Also, a word of caution. I would definitely go with a two-card solution
    whether or not you can boot and use a single one. Reason for this is you
    want to always try to minimize write cycles for card longevity. The OS
    image is expendable and easily replaced in minutes, the collected data is
    not.

    > This thread is one solution we are pursuing as if we can get even a
    > small quanity of the older cards we will be OK on this project and
    > can design round it for any new project.


    I would contact SimpleTech and discuss this with them. If they feel you
    will be a somewhat large OEM they will ship overnight free samples of
    various cards to you. Keep in mind, though OEM, you will still satisfy
    COTS. Good luck.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Nov 24, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BobS

    Kingston 1Gb CF card

    BobS, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    335
    Bill Jackson
    Sep 30, 2004
  2. zxcvar

    What is the catch - Kingston's SD card

    zxcvar, Nov 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    335
  3. David J Taylor

    If you have 4GB, are you getting 4GB?

    David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,322
    Roger
    Feb 2, 2006
  4. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,348
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,037
Loading...

Share This Page