Re: Sony offers Compact Flash -- HELL JUST FROZE OVER!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charlie Self, Aug 19, 2003.

  1. Charlie Self

    nospam Guest

    Godfrey DiGiorgi <> wrote:

    >Based on these statements, the Memory Stick PRO standardized minimum write
    >speed is 15Mbps with a potential of greater than 10x that, in fast devices,
    >where only the top of the line CF cards achieve up to 2.8MB/sec (or 22Mbps),
    >where most are under 10Mbps.


    Cool, but don't suppose the original memory stick standard said the maximum
    capacity would be 128MB before being obsoleted (along with many devices
    that use them) by a new standard.

    I would take any claims of Memory Stick Pro potentials with a huge grain of
    salt.
     
    nospam, Aug 20, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. > With my Sony I can turn the camera on and know 'exactly'
    > the time I have left on the battery. Comes in handy if you are
    > going off for a walk and you know you'll be gone for 30 or 60
    > minutes and you KNOW you have 150 or 120 or even 90 minutes
    > left. It IS very handy to know!


    Maybe so. However, all that one need do is to carry a set of
    extra batteries, be it Lithium or AA NiMH, and you can swap them
    out very quickly should the need arise.

    I simply don't see the big deal here. Knowing when the very last
    minute or second of charge may be still leaves you with the same
    problem. Once your battery runs out, you need to put a new one
    in. It is very easy to do and I see no real advantage to knowing
    the time down to the very second.

    > As good as the battery in my 10D is I was almost caught
    > with a dead battery when I turned the camera on, saw a full
    > charge on the icon and went off only to turn the camera on a
    > while later into my walk and shortly find the battery was
    > running low. Lucky I had enough and from now on I'll be sure
    > to bring another battery which isn't needed with the Sony Info
    > Lithium.


    Say you want to go on a 90 minute walk and your battery says it
    only has 60 minutes of time left? Same problem - no big deal -
    just carry one small extra battery and you are good to go. :)

    > As to which is better? Who cares if what you use works for
    > you. I personally can't see lugging around 16 AA batteries in
    > my pockets, then again I can't see me with more than 1 extra
    > battery for my cameras. To each their own!


    Agreed - to each their own.

    As for "lugging" - heck, I don't get that either. I have a total
    of 12 AA NiMH batteries - 4 in the camera, 4 each in two very
    small plastic containers that fit in my small camera bag. It is
    in there with my little remote control, portable tripod, extra
    lens cap and cleaning wipes. I really don't think 8 extra AA
    batteries are going to weigh very much...

    Hey, at least we don't have to lug around huge lenses for SLR's.
    :)
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 21, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Charlie Self

    Bill Frank Guest

    "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The Memory Stick PRO basics on <http://www.memorystick.com/> states:
    >
    > "In addition to serial transfer, Memory Stick PRO media supports parallel
    > transfer to enable simultaneous transmission/reception of multiple data.

    In
    > the parallel mode, data is transferred at speeds up to 160Mbps

    (theoretical
    > value), making it possible to record DVD-quality moving images in real

    time*.
    > With this high speed, Memory Stick PRO media also supports the advanced
    > solutions that will be brought about in the coming broadband era.
    >
    > * When Memory Stick PRO media is used in a product that supports parallel
    > transfer.
    >
    > ...
    > To meet the requirement of high-quality video recording, the minimum write
    > speed has been standardized at 15Mbps. When used with an optimized Memory
    > Stick PRO-compatible product*, Memory Stick PRO media can write at speeds

    of
    > 15Mbps or higher -- fast enough to record DVD-quality video, which is
    > recorded at 9Mbps. Even if power is interrupted during recording due to
    > battery depletion, etc., data recorded up to that moment is not lost. With
    > this media, users can efficiently and smoothly record massive volumes of
    > data.
    > * When the write speed of the compatible product is also more than 15Mbps.

    "
    > ----
    > Sandisk says this about their fastest CF cards, the Ultra CompactFlash, at
    > <http://www.sandisk.com/consumer/ultra.asp>:
    >
    > "Advanced Features:
    > Highest transfer rate for fast copy/download; up to 2.8 MB per second or

    more
    > than twice the sustained write speed of SanDisk's standard products."
    > ----
    >
    > Based on these statements, the Memory Stick PRO standardized minimum write
    > speed is 15Mbps with a potential of greater than 10x that, in fast

    devices,
    > where only the top of the line CF cards achieve up to 2.8MB/sec (or

    22Mbps),
    > where most are under 10Mbps.
    >
    > Godfrey
    >
    > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:40:17 -0400, Bill Frank wrote
    > (in message <>):
    >
    > > While the theoretical maximum transfer speed is 20MB/sec for the Memory
    > > Stick PRO, the spec for the Memory Stick PRO write transfer speed is

    15Mbps
    > > (15Mbits/sec or about 2MB/sec).with optimized Memory Stick PRO format
    > > compatible devices. Almost all CompactFlash cards shipping today have
    > > sustained write data rates of 2-6MB/sec. So, it seems that the Memory

    Stick
    > > PRO is slower than most CF cards.
    > >
    > > Bill Frank
    > > CompactFlash Association

    >

    Top of the line CompactFlash cards have a sustained write speed of over
    6MB/sec. Most are over 2MB/sec. Current CompactFlash cards have a
    theoretical maximum transfer speed of 16MB/sec. This will be increased to
    33MB/sec in 2004 while maintaining complete forward and backward
    compatibility.

    Per Rob Galbraith transfer rate tests
    (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133)

    SanDisk Regular 2MB/sec
    SanDisk Original Ultra - 2.4MB/sec
    SanDisk New Ultra - 7.6 to 7.9MB/sec.

    All other cards listed are over 3MB/sec.

    Bill Frank
    CompactFlash Association
     
    Bill Frank, Aug 21, 2003
    #23
  4. I'm not certain I understand this:

    > ... don't suppose the original memory stick standard said the maximum
    > capacity would be 128MB before being obsoleted (along with many devices
    > that use them) by a new standard.
    >
    > I would take any claims of Memory Stick Pro potentials with a huge grain of
    > salt.



    What did you mean to say by that?

    Memory Stick PRO is a reality now. The F828 has been announced as available
    for purchase in November and takes advantage of the MS PRO high speed
    capabilities for video capture.


    Godfrey
     
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Aug 21, 2003
    #24
  5. On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 0:26:02 -0400, Bill Frank wrote
    (in message <>):

    >> Sandisk says this about their fastest CF cards, the Ultra CompactFlash, at
    >> <http://www.sandisk.com/consumer/ultra.asp>:
    >>
    >> "Advanced Features:
    >> Highest transfer rate for fast copy/download; up to 2.8 MB per second or
    >> more
    >> than twice the sustained write speed of SanDisk's standard products."
    >>

    > Top of the line CompactFlash cards have a sustained write speed of over
    > 6MB/sec. Most are over 2MB/sec. Current CompactFlash cards have a
    > theoretical maximum transfer speed of 16MB/sec. This will be increased to
    > 33MB/sec in 2004 while maintaining complete forward and backward
    > compatibility.
    >
    > Per Rob Galbraith transfer rate tests
    > (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133)
    >
    > SanDisk Regular 2MB/sec
    > SanDisk Original Ultra - 2.4MB/sec
    > SanDisk New Ultra - 7.6 to 7.9MB/sec.
    >
    > All other cards listed are over 3MB/sec.


    What other cards listed?
    So why does Sandisk not state that of their own products?

    None of those rates are close to 20MB/sec either.

    Godfrey
     
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Aug 21, 2003
    #25
  6. "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:HNW0b.17906$...
    > > With my Sony I can turn the camera on and know 'exactly'
    > > the time I have left on the battery. Comes in handy if you are
    > > going off for a walk and you know you'll be gone for 30 or 60
    > > minutes and you KNOW you have 150 or 120 or even 90 minutes
    > > left. It IS very handy to know!

    >
    > Maybe so. However, all that one need do is to carry a set of
    > extra batteries, be it Lithium or AA NiMH, and you can swap them
    > out very quickly should the need arise.


    But that's one more thing that needs to be done/carried. Another unnecessary
    irritation.

    > I simply don't see the big deal here.


    The only big deal is that there is someone here claiming AAs are _better_.
    He's dead wrong: they're worse, in so many ways that it adds up to be a big
    difference.

    Not buying a camera because it doesn't use AAs is
    problematic on two grounds (a) it's not a big deal; image quality is more
    important than minor convenience differences, (b) Li-ion (at least the Sony
    version) is a lot more convenient than AA.

    When I had only used AAs, I didn't see anything wrong with them either. But
    when I inserted the battery in the S85 I instantly realized how much a
    better mechanical system the S85 is than the C2020, and then later when
    realized that I would never need the extra battery I had bought, I
    understood how truly bad AAs really are.

    > Knowing when the very last
    > minute or second of charge may be still leaves you with the same
    > problem. Once your battery runs out, you need to put a new one
    > in. It is very easy to do and I see no real advantage to knowing
    > the time down to the very second.


    If you have a segment of a ballet, or soccer match, or figure skating
    routine that you want to get all of, then it's nice to be able to look at
    the time readout and decide whether or not to switch to a fresh battery.
    It's a convenience. It means not changing batteries unnecessarily. A nicety.
    There are so many of these little niceties with the Sony batteries that it
    adds up to a significant difference.

    > > As good as the battery in my 10D is I was almost caught
    > > with a dead battery when I turned the camera on, saw a full
    > > charge on the icon and went off only to turn the camera on a
    > > while later into my walk and shortly find the battery was
    > > running low. Lucky I had enough and from now on I'll be sure
    > > to bring another battery which isn't needed with the Sony Info
    > > Lithium.

    >
    > Say you want to go on a 90 minute walk and your battery says it
    > only has 60 minutes of time left? Same problem - no big deal -
    > just carry one small extra battery and you are good to go. :)


    No, you switch to your fully charged battery.

    Without the time readout, you have to either (a) carry one more battery set
    than you thought you needed or (b) always swap to freshly charged batteries
    before you go out. And note that you'll probably want to top off the charge
    on all your batteries if you haven't been shooting in two weeks with AAs.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 21, 2003
    #26
  7. Charlie Self

    Max Burke Guest

    > Paul D. Sullivan scribbled:
    > The NiMH chargers that let you recondition your AA's can help
    > extend charge capacity and life significantly.


    Yeah....
    Dont have to do that with my proprietary batteries. Can be charged at
    any time in their 'discharge' cycle, and only take about 60-80 minutes
    to charge fully.

    > As for knowing time down to the minute, I don't see that as
    > something that would be so severely needed for the average
    > person.


    You know *exactly* how long that battery can be used for before changing
    it for a fully charged one.

    > My camera (Olympus C5050) has a warning when nearing the
    > end of the capacity.


    I dont need to be concerned and about my batteries being 'near' the end
    of their capacity when they show me *exactly* how long they have before
    needing to be changed.
    Near enough just doesn't cut it when you can have spot on accuracy.....

    > You can take the time to change batteries
    > right there, or at a convenient point a few shots down the road,
    > or keep shooting until the camera detects that there is not
    > enough juice left for a shot, at which point the camera does a
    > soft shut-down and you can change the batteries.


    Sure you can if you're happy with just being near enough.
    I know *exactly* when I'll need to change the battery......

    > Simply because you have a preference for your particular
    > brand/type of battery does not negate the fact that there are
    > many other very good options out there for others, including a
    > very large market for NiMH AA batteries.


    My brand of battery is which ever works best for it's intended purpose.
    In digital camera's I much prefer the battery be reliable, long lasting,
    and be able to tell *exactly* how long I can continue to use it to take
    photographs before it runs out. AA's when compared to Sony proprietary
    batteries simply dont make the grade....

    > As to cost, I purchased a 10 pack of 1700mA's for $16.99, and
    > they have been doing wonderfully for me so far. :)


    Will they last you five plus years and still be as good as they were
    when you first bought them? Do you like carrying around ten batteries?
    I only carry one spare battery BTW

    --
    mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
    Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
    See Found Images at:
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    Max Burke, Aug 21, 2003
    #27
  8. Charlie Self

    Max Burke Guest

    > Charlie Self scribbled:

    >> Max Burke responds:


    >> I've got 4-5 sets of NiMh, so don't worry at all about
    >>> running out of batteries in the middle of a session.


    >> So you have to carry around 16 - 20 batteries....
    >> I only need one, but carry a spare one that are only the size and
    >> weight of *THREE* AA's....


    > 98% of my shooting is done in my workshop. I don't carry ANYTHING.


    Why are you using batteries at all then?

    BTW most people like to take their cameras with them, and not limit
    themselves to using it in only one place....
    I take my camera everywhere with me....

    >>> How many people have you even heard of who are using
    >>> non-rechargeable AAs in cameras?


    >> Most people that use digital cameras, until they find out that they
    >> dont last very long; Then they find out they have to buy 16 - 20
    >> rechargables to carry around with them, unless they have a Sony
    >> camera that uses Sony batteries. Then that 'situation' just doesn't
    >> figure in how we use our cameras.....


    > Oh, nonsense.


    No it's not.

    > Most people who use digital cameras, at least the few
    > dozen I know, do NOT use non-rechargeables.


    A few dozen people is NOT most people......

    > Those that do seem to
    > take the manufacturer's inclusion of batteries as a marker for what's
    > needed, without ever reading the manual.


    > If Sony offered a camera that would work in a way that I needed it,
    > I'd have bought one way back when. But the F717 is limited in
    > lighting selection in studio and close up work, so I didn't.


    WTF?
    You buy the camera that suites YOUR intended purpose surely? What has
    the 'best tool for the job' basic fact got to do with the debate?

    > I still feel that anyone who lets the battery be the arbiter in any
    > decision to buy a camera, whether selecting for proprietary or AA, is
    > foolish.


    But that's just *your opinion.* The type of battery used in a camera
    was and is just one of the criteria I base my choice of camera on. A
    crucial one, but not the only one.

    > I bought my camera for other reasons. It takes AA. I find AA
    > absolutely no inconvenience.


    Who says it is an inconvenience for you? *I* dont. But then I dont see
    why you say the batteries my cameras use must be an inconvenience to me
    because you think they are.....
    See how that works.......

    > But, hey, as True Believer, you are doing fine.


    A true believer in what?

    Taking good photographs sure; Believing I can only do that if I use a
    camera that uses AA's rather than proprietary batteries is your
    argument, NOT mine.
    But then this forum is infamous for believing that you can only take
    good photographs if you have the 'right camera' and that the users
    abilities dont figure in that at all.......

    --
    mlvburke@#%&*.net.nz
    Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
    See Found Images at:
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    Max Burke, Aug 21, 2003
    #28
  9. Charlie Self

    nospam Guest

    Godfrey DiGiorgi <> wrote:

    >I'm not certain I understand this:
    >
    >> ... don't suppose the original memory stick standard said the maximum
    >> capacity would be 128MB before being obsoleted (along with many devices
    >> that use them) by a new standard.
    >>
    >> I would take any claims of Memory Stick Pro potentials with a huge grain of
    >> salt.

    >
    >hat did you mean to say by that?


    You said

    "Memory Stick PRO standardized minimum write
    speed is 15Mbps with a potential of greater than 10x that"

    note *potential*

    I purchased a Sony camera using memory sticks believing the *potential*
    maximum capacity of memory stick was more than 128MB. The reality is memory
    stick was made obsolete by memory stick pro before anything larger than
    128MB was made available. My Sony camera is not compatible with memory
    stick pro.

    Given this appalling track record of claimed *potential* vs actual delivery
    it would be foolish to assume memory stick pro claimed *potentials" will
    ever be delivered.
     
    nospam, Aug 21, 2003
    #29
  10. That's just sour grapes, and is no different from other media which didn't
    pan out as originally planed.

    They've delivered on these Memory Stick PRO potentials: They already support
    these capabilities, it's the cameras and other devices that use them which
    need to be delivered. The F828 will make good use of Memory Stick PRO speed
    potentials.

    This is different from the Memory Stick capacity limits. They moved to MS PRO
    when it became necessary: they could not support the bigger capacities and
    speed desired with the original specification and existing controller
    technologies. That was an error, they just couldn't produce bigger ones in
    that spec like they'd planned.

    Godfrey



    On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 9:17:36 -0400, nospam wrote
    (in message <>):

    > "Memory Stick PRO standardized minimum write
    > speed is 15Mbps with a potential of greater than 10x that"
    >
    > note *potential*
    >
    > I purchased a Sony camera using memory sticks believing the *potential*
    > maximum capacity of memory stick was more than 128MB. The reality is memory
    > stick was made obsolete by memory stick pro before anything larger than
    > 128MB was made available. My Sony camera is not compatible with memory
    > stick pro.
    >
    > Given this appalling track record of claimed *potential* vs actual delivery
    > it would be foolish to assume memory stick pro claimed *potentials" will
    > ever be delivered.
     
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Aug 21, 2003
    #30
  11. Charlie Self

    Bill Frank Guest

    "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 0:26:02 -0400, Bill Frank wrote
    > (in message <>):
    >
    > >> Sandisk says this about their fastest CF cards, the Ultra CompactFlash,

    at
    > >> <http://www.sandisk.com/consumer/ultra.asp>:
    > >>
    > >> "Advanced Features:
    > >> Highest transfer rate for fast copy/download; up to 2.8 MB per second

    or
    > >> more
    > >> than twice the sustained write speed of SanDisk's standard products."
    > >>

    > > Top of the line CompactFlash cards have a sustained write speed of over
    > > 6MB/sec. Most are over 2MB/sec. Current CompactFlash cards have a
    > > theoretical maximum transfer speed of 16MB/sec. This will be increased

    to
    > > 33MB/sec in 2004 while maintaining complete forward and backward
    > > compatibility.
    > >
    > > Per Rob Galbraith transfer rate tests
    > > (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133)
    > >
    > > SanDisk Regular 2MB/sec
    > > SanDisk Original Ultra - 2.4MB/sec
    > > SanDisk New Ultra - 7.6 to 7.9MB/sec.
    > >
    > > All other cards listed are over 3MB/sec.

    >
    > What other cards listed?
    > So why does Sandisk not state that of their own products?
    >
    > None of those rates are close to 20MB/sec either.
    >
    > Godfrey
    >

    There are 40 cards listed. All over 3MB/sec. except SanDisk Regular and
    SanDisk Original Ultra.
    Ask SanDisk. Rob just measures the cards' actually transfer rates.

    Memory Stick PRO does not sustain a data transfer rate of 20MB/sec. That is
    a theoretical data transfer rate according to the Sony Spec.

    Per Sony "The minimum write speed of 15Mbps that can be realized with
    optimized Memory Stick PRO format compatible devices." No indication of any
    sustained operation above 15Mbps (1.89MB/sec). However, a sustained write
    speed of 2MB/sec is sufficient to store MPEG video continuously. This means
    that the Memory Stick PRO and almost all CompactFlash cards are capable of
    recording MPEG video on a continuous basis if the host system is designed to
    match the transfer rate capabilities of the cards.

    Bill Frank
    CompactFlash Association
     
    Bill Frank, Aug 21, 2003
    #31
  12. Charlie Self

    nospam Guest

    Godfrey DiGiorgi <> wrote:

    >That's just sour grapes, and is no different from other media which didn't
    >pan out as originally planed.
    >
    >They've delivered on these Memory Stick PRO potentials:


    So tell me where I can buy a memory stick with 150Mb/sec write speeds or
    shut up.
     
    nospam, Aug 21, 2003
    #32
  13. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    >Other than speed, size, weight, and a mechanically better connector. Just as
    >AA battery compartment doors involve excessive force on the hinges, CF cards
    >require excessive force for insertion/removal.


    How is the force excessive? Yes there are lots of pins, but the total
    force still isn't that high. I have no problems inserting/removing the
    CF card from a Canon G2 (which has an ejector button) and A200 (where
    you simply grasp the card edge and pull).

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 21, 2003
    #33
  14. Godfrey DiGiorgi <> writes:

    >They've delivered on these Memory Stick PRO potentials: They already support
    >these capabilities, it's the cameras and other devices that use them which
    >need to be delivered. The F828 will make good use of Memory Stick PRO speed
    >potentials.


    What is the actual maximum write transfer rate of current Memory Stick
    Pro products? The standard says it has to be 15 megabit, which is about
    2 megabytes/sec. The "potential" may be 10X faster, but what do the
    existing products actually measure as?

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 21, 2003
    #34
  15. I leave my 512 meg CF card in the camera all the time - I use USB
    to copy the files off. Never have to worry about it at all... :)

    > In message <bi346l$3c7$>,
    > (Dave Martindale) wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> How is the force excessive? Yes there are lots of pins, but
    >> the total force still isn't that high. I have no problems
    >> inserting/removing the CF card from a Canon G2 (which has an
    >> ejector button) and A200 (where you simply grasp the card
    >> edge and pull).

    >
    > I can do it, but the CF is much harder to insert in my 10D and
    > my Sandisk reader than a memory stick in my Sony or reader.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 22, 2003
    #35
  16. Charlie Self

    Bill Frank Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > "Bill Frank" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >SanDisk Regular 2MB/sec
    > >SanDisk Original Ultra - 2.4MB/sec
    > >SanDisk New Ultra - 7.6 to 7.9MB/sec.
    > >
    > >All other cards listed are over 3MB/sec.

    >
    > I have a 1GB Lexar 32x "WA" card. It can be written to at only 1.75
    > MB/s, and read at about 2.25 MB/s.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    If a host device like a camera operates at a slower sustained data rate, a
    faster CF card will operate at the host speed.

    The 32X rating means that the card can be written to at 4.8MB/sec by a host
    device capable of that data rate. The Kodak 14N can write to this card at
    about 3.1MB/sec. The Nikon D1x can write to this card at about 2.5MB/sec.
    The Canon 1Ds can write to this card at about 2MB/sec.

    Using a FireWire reader, data can be read from this card at 5.9MB/sec.

    See Rob Galbraith's data at
    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6133

    Bill Frank
    CompactFlash Association
     
    Bill Frank, Aug 22, 2003
    #36
  17. Charlie Self

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    lid says...
    > Godfrey DiGiorgi <> wrote:
    >
    > >That's just sour grapes, and is no different from other media which didn't
    > >pan out as originally planed.
    > >
    > >They've delivered on these Memory Stick PRO potentials:

    >
    > So tell me where I can buy a memory stick with 150Mb/sec write speeds or
    > shut up.


    Ya know, Mr. Nospam, Godfrey is a long time, well respected, mature
    member of this group. He is never rude to anyone and he hasn't been rude
    to you, so what is the reason for your venom toward him? You and he have
    a difference of opinion. It happens all the time here. It's what makes
    this an interesting place. I have had differences of opinion with
    Godfrey in the past but I never told him to shut up and he was never
    rude to me either.

    If you can't participate in a friendly debate like an adult, you should
    go somewhere else.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Aug 22, 2003
    #37
  18. Charlie Self

    nospam Guest

    Todd Walker <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Godfrey DiGiorgi <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >That's just sour grapes, and is no different from other media which didn't
    >> >pan out as originally planed.
    >> >
    >> >They've delivered on these Memory Stick PRO potentials:

    >>
    >> So tell me where I can buy a memory stick with 150Mb/sec write speeds or
    >> shut up.

    >
    >Ya know, Mr. Nospam, Godfrey is a long time, well respected, mature
    >member of this group.


    Like I care - an argument is won or lost on merit not by who makes it.

    As he was refusing to concede while loosing I didn't see any point
    prolonging it.
     
    nospam, Aug 22, 2003
    #38
  19. Some people are just too stubborn and closed minded. :)

    Whatever works for someone should be fine for the rest of us.
    Why should we care if person A likes CF better than Sony MS or
    vice-versa?

    People need to relax! :)

    > Todd Walker <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> lid says...
    >>> Godfrey DiGiorgi <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> That's just sour grapes, and is no different from other
    >>>> media which didn't pan out as originally planed.
    >>>>
    >>>> They've delivered on these Memory Stick PRO potentials:
    >>>
    >>> So tell me where I can buy a memory stick with 150Mb/sec
    >>> write speeds or shut up.

    >>
    >> Ya know, Mr. Nospam, Godfrey is a long time, well respected,
    >> mature
    >> member of this group.

    >
    > Like I care - an argument is won or lost on merit not by who
    > makes it.
    >
    > As he was refusing to concede while loosing I didn't see any
    > point
    > prolonging it.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Aug 22, 2003
    #39
  20. Charlie Self

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Bill Frank" <> wrote:

    >The 32X rating means that the card can be written to at 4.8MB/sec by a host
    >device capable of that data rate.


    My 1.75 MB/s figure comes from the Sandisk USB 2.0 reader. That's the
    benchmarked uncached speed under the operating system (Windows XP). My
    older Sandisk Ultra 512 MB cards can be written at well over 2 MB/s in
    the same reader.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Aug 23, 2003
    #40
    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. Todd Walker

    Sony offers Compact Flash -- HELL JUST FROZE OVER!

    Todd Walker, Aug 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    71
    Views:
    1,293
    Wayne J
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. FOR7b
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    369
  3. Rick S.
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,217
    Ron Hunter
    Sep 13, 2004
  4. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    942
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  5. Smart Shoppers

    Ramzan Offers, Eid Offers, 50% off

    Smart Shoppers, Sep 15, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    667
    Smart Shoppers
    Sep 15, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page