Transcend, Lexar or Kingston for USB drive?
beccy
http://tinyurl.com/y9eqy45
Can't work out which one to get. Which of these is better?
Transcend JetFlash
Lexar JumpDrive
Kingston Data Traveler Mini Slim
Thanks.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
At that price (ie cheap) they'll all be the same tech. All three are
top brand names. So go for the one that looks either sturdiest or
nicest.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"January 1, 2000 might well be the first day in over six years that
is _not_ in September 1993..." - M Grant in afp
But unfortunately, he was later found to be wrong.
Chris Whelan
The Kingston one is *really* small, which may or may not be useful to you.
Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
John Jordan
>>
>> Transcend JetFlash
>> Lexar JumpDrive
>> Kingston Data Traveler Mini Slim
>
> At that price (ie cheap) they'll all be the same tech. All three are
> top brand names. So go for the one that looks either sturdiest or
> nicest.
Last time I tested 2-4GB sticks I found a huge variation in 4KB random
write rate even between the cheap sticks. It's not predictable by brand
though, and if you're not concerned about the speed of writing a lot of
small files then it doesn't matter much.
--
John Jordan
Adrian C
> Transcend JetFlash
> Lexar JumpDrive
> Kingston Data Traveler Mini Slim
>
Which ever one has a design that ye can't easily lose the cap!
--
Adrian C
Rudy
"beccy" <n...@not.here> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCCBA2...@mail.eternal-september.org...
> knife. Works nice.
Rudy
>
>
kony
True, but Kingston are often slower at the low end price
category. The only way to be sure if you can't test them
yourself is look at reviews/benchmarks of exact models you
consider, my above generalization about Kingston is only
that, not solid enough to pick an alternative without any
data about how that alternative performs.
kony
... or just throw the cap away then you know exactly where
it went... seldom is a cap really needed, maybe if your
environment is subject to a lot of sand-storms.
Chris Whelan
That makes it an easy choice then; The Kingston doesn't have a cap.
Chris Whelan
[...]
>> I have a Lexar 4gb and it doesn't have a cap. It unfolds like a pocket
>> knife. Works nice.
>
> Rudy
Is it a Lexar JumpDrive though?
Pretty sure they have a cap...
Tony Houghton
kony <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
I like the sort where you can attach the cap to a keyring instead of the
main body. Most people (according to customer reviews) seem to think
that's a design flaw rather than an advantage, and there aren't many
models like that. But I've never known a cap to come off by accident,
and the advantage is you can plug it in without having a heavy bunch of
keys hanging off your USB socket or struggling to remove it from the
keyring.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Mike Tomlinson
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> writes
>That makes it an easy choice then; The Kingston doesn't have a cap.
Mine does (but it's a plain Data Traveller, not the USB Slim.) To make
up for including the cap, Kingston left out the activity LED so I can't
tell what it is doing.
--
Mike Tomlinson
kony
True, but I avoid the issue by using a relatively quick
release snap hook on mine, though not all USB drives have a
durable enough attachment point to withstand long term use
of one like this:
Ken Maltby
"beccy" <n...@not.here> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCCBA2...@mail.eternal-september.org...
I use an IOGEAR "Pocket Drive" that is a "5-n-1
Pocket Card Reader/Writer" for SD&MMC including
SDHC. Sorta like this one:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=BLU-CR-SDMMC-BULK&cat=FLM
Every once in awhile I'll find some good quality Class 6,
4 or 8 GB SD cards on sale.
I haven't yet found out why a traditional USB "Flash Drive"
would be any better than the SD cards. Anyone have an
opinion, SD verses Flash Drive?
Luck;
Ken
kony
Generally a USB flash drive would be more durable since you
have the memory integral and only one set of electrical
contacts, and by doing away with the write protect switch
some USB flash drives used to have but now mostly don't
(though some might feel a write protect switch is a
desirable feature).
A high tiered SD card can perform equally well given a good
reader for it, but often such a combo costs more, and some
USB flash drives are now dual channel which does make them
inherantly faster with all else equal.
I've had much better luck booting systems to USB flash
drives. I have a couple card readers that can, but some
that can't. Can't remember the last USB flash drive I
bought that couldn't boot on a motherboard generally
capable/non-buggy with regards to it's bios implementation
of that.
Overall I see the main plus as how small some USB flash
drives are, more manageable in a pocket. My preference for
flash cards would be Compact Flash because there's more room
for chips in 'em to reach higher capacity and their legacy
ATA support allows booting old systems with a CF-IDE
adapter, though I concede they are a bit bulky for the
smallest of portable consumer electronics use.
Ken Maltby
"kony" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:bu1pg55nb7ntvnpd5...@4ax.com...
I can't think of any extreme condition where a USB flash drive
would actually be any more "durable" than a USB SD card
reader/writer, that encloses the SD card. The contact pads on
the SD cards are even more substantial than most USB devices.
I have never heard of any issues with the write protect switch on
SD cards. (I find them of less consequence than the tabs on a
floppy.)
> A high tiered SD card can perform equally well given a good
> reader for it, but often such a combo costs more, and some
> USB flash drives are now dual channel which does make them
> inherantly faster with all else equal.
>
Funny, I've usually found the 16GB and under SD cards to be
cheaper than most of the dedicated USB Flash Drives. You can
find a good USB reader/writer for under $10. SD cards do come
in a number of "speeds" and most now have their speed ratings
tied to a "Class" number rating, Class 6 being the most available of
the higher speed cards. But, the fact is that both USB devices are
limited to what the 2.0 spec allows.
> I've had much better luck booting systems to USB flash
> drives. I have a couple card readers that can, but some
> that can't. Can't remember the last USB flash drive I
> bought that couldn't boot on a motherboard generally
> capable/non-buggy with regards to it's bios implementation
> of that.
>
There is often an element of luck when purchasing low cost
devices, like these. Sometimes cheapest is a bargain, other
times it's just a waste. I've booted to Linux and FreeDos with
mine. With the SD cards out of the USB reader/writer, they
are what I use to flash my PDA or transfer files and add drive
space with my Netbook.
> Overall I see the main plus as how small some USB flash
> drives are, more manageable in a pocket.
If you mean those built into a pen or something, then I agree,
otherwise they seem to be about the same size in someone's
pocket. You can get Credit Card wallets that are made to hold
a number of SD cards, for an expanded and more versatile data
storage option. ( You might have rescue tools on one SD and
a vast library of e-Books on another. Ect...)
> My preference for
> flash cards would be Compact Flash because there's more room
> for chips in 'em to reach higher capacity and their legacy
> ATA support allows booting old systems with a CF-IDE
> adapter, though I concede they are a bit bulky for the
> smallest of portable consumer electronics use.
Kind of a specialized use, there. Not running into that much IDE
anymore.
Luck;
Ken
kony
<kma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I can't think of any extreme condition where a USB flash drive
> would actually be any more "durable" than a USB SD card
>reader/writer, that encloses the SD card.
Most don't enclose the card, they have it stick out a bit so
you can grab it for removal. Either way it is a deeper
chamber that dust/dirt/pocket-lint/etc can get in, and
seldom are card readers waterproof while many USB flash
drives are either waterproof or at least very water
resistant - and even if soaking in water will be ready to
use after shaking water off contacts and allowing to dry for
a few minutes. Granted, lots of things in life can't
withstand water so it depends on the risk factors in use,
seldom do I leave anything in my pockets but it is a
possibility when clothes get washed, anything could get wet.
Many flash cards themselves are not fully sealed. I
considering it a manufacturing defect BUT they didn't claim
they were waterproof so I have no real recourse.
>The contact pads on
>the SD cards are even more substantial than most USB devices.
Not really, they are just thin plated pads while a full
shelled USB connector uses strips of metal that should
withstand quite a few more insertion and removal cycles,
though I doubt it would make a difference since most people
would never approach the # of cycles needed to wear out
either.
The larger problem is the deep recess and pins in the card
slot itself being subject to fouling by contamination.
Granted it could happen to a computer's USB port too, but I
feel being less portable the computer is less likely subject
to such contamination.
>I have never heard of any issues with the write protect switch on
>SD cards. (I find them of less consequence than the tabs on a
>floppy.)
>
Low quality slots, poor manufacturing, or contact buildup
can make the closer of the switch circuit in the reader go
bad. It is not much of an issue to consider but ultimately
if a careful examination is done I would have to consider
inclusion of a mechanical switch more prone to failure than
lack of one, particularly when it's contacts are exposed
through the slot to contamination opposed to a more sealed
switch.
>> A high tiered SD card can perform equally well given a good
>> reader for it, but often such a combo costs more, and some
>> USB flash drives are now dual channel which does make them
>> inherantly faster with all else equal.
>>
>
> Funny, I've usually found the 16GB and under SD cards to be
>cheaper than most of the dedicated USB Flash Drives. You can
>find a good USB reader/writer for under $10. SD cards do come
>in a number of "speeds" and most now have their speed ratings
>tied to a "Class" number rating, Class 6 being the most available of
>the higher speed cards. But, the fact is that both USB devices are
>limited to what the 2.0 spec allows.
Well, the fact is most cheap SD cards do not read at 35MB/s
in most sub-$10 flash readers, though "most" is a pretty
vague word but the last few USB flash drives I've bought
were bargain priced at about $15 and do both achieve that.
Writing on the other hand has more variability, I do feel
class 6 SDHC can equal them often.
>
>
>> I've had much better luck booting systems to USB flash
>> drives. I have a couple card readers that can, but some
>> that can't. Can't remember the last USB flash drive I
>> bought that couldn't boot on a motherboard generally
>> capable/non-buggy with regards to it's bios implementation
>> of that.
>>
>
> There is often an element of luck when purchasing low cost
>devices, like these. Sometimes cheapest is a bargain, other
>times it's just a waste. I've booted to Linux and FreeDos with
>mine. With the SD cards out of the USB reader/writer, they
>are what I use to flash my PDA or transfer files and add drive
>space with my Netbook.
I am talking about a lower level of incompatibility, that no
OS at all will boot from some card readers as they simply
don't appear to emulate a boot device properly for the
purposes of (whatever they are I don't recall at the
moment) motherboard BIOS requirements. If you have a
compatible reader it should boot any SD card fine, given a
compatible format, boot loader for the OS, etc.
>
>> Overall I see the main plus as how small some USB flash
>> drives are, more manageable in a pocket.
>
> If you mean those built into a pen or something, then I agree,
>otherwise they seem to be about the same size in someone's
>pocket.
No the ones built into a pen are huge by my standards, take
a look at this one, smaller than an SD card itself:
http://lanoc.org/reviews/super-talent-pico-32gb/
Granted that is an extreme example but many are not much
larger today.
Even those with a full USB connector now often have a body
only large enough to contain the back end so far as
thickness and width, that is significantly smaller than any
SD card reader that can contain the card - actually smaller
than many that don't contain the card too.
>You can get Credit Card wallets that are made to hold
>a number of SD cards, for an expanded and more versatile data
>storage option. ( You might have rescue tools on one SD and
>a vast library of e-Books on another. Ect...)
>
I would never sit on an SD card. For it to be thick enough
to not subject the card to stress, it would make for an
already fat wallet getting ever fatter and more
uncomfortable.
Plus, that doesn't do anything for the reader itself which
is the larger part of the two piece combo.
>> My preference for
>> flash cards would be Compact Flash because there's more room
>> for chips in 'em to reach higher capacity and their legacy
>> ATA support allows booting old systems with a CF-IDE
>> adapter, though I concede they are a bit bulky for the
>> smallest of portable consumer electronics use.
>
> Kind of a specialized use, there. Not running into that much IDE
>anymore.
Almost every motherboard made in the last 20+ years isn't
common enough? For a camera, depends on the type.
Point-n-shoot, I'd want SD for size reduction. Prosumer or
better SLR I'm not wanting it shrunk down and would as soon
have more card internal capacity, have no need to carry
along extra cards if it can be avoided since the one in the
camera has more space.
Ken Maltby
I am not about to tear any apart, to measure their thickness,
but it is obvious that none of the ones on hand "are just thin
plated pads", you can even feel an edge on some that is at
least as thick as a playing card. This goes for the "adata",
"Lexar", "RiDATA", "Memorex", "SanDisk" and "Transcend"
cards on hand.
> The larger problem is the deep recess and pins in the card
> slot itself being subject to fouling by contamination.
> Granted it could happen to a computer's USB port too, but I
> feel being less portable the computer is less likely subject
> to such contamination.
>
The "pocketable" ones I was referring to (like the one at
the link I provided) have covers that enclose the SD card
when it is in place, as well as the card slot all the time. They
also have covers over the USB connector, just like Flash
Drives do.
>
>>I have never heard of any issues with the write protect switch on
>>SD cards. (I find them of less consequence than the tabs on a
>>floppy.)
>>
>
> Low quality slots, poor manufacturing, or contact buildup
> can make the closer of the switch circuit in the reader go
> bad.
The "switch circuit in the reader" just detects the presence
of a notch at a particular spot on the left side of the SD card.
The write protect switch on the SD card just changes where
the notch is. It can be a very simple switch, not subject to
any real "contact buildup".
I usually advise against buying "low quality", poorly
manufactured Flash Drives as well.
"Contact buildup" is mostly an environmental factor, (don't
dip your cards in peanut butter prior to inserting them), but
the contacts can be easily cleaned, in fact; given that they
are bigger and more substantial than USB contacts, it would
be easier than cleaning them. (The limited oxidation at the
low current being applied to these contacts, makes this issue
a joke.)
> It is not much of an issue to consider but ultimately
> if a careful examination is done I would have to consider
> inclusion of a mechanical switch more prone to failure than
> lack of one, particularly when it's contacts are exposed
> through the slot to contamination opposed to a more sealed
> switch.
>
All the write protect switches on the SD cards I have are
"sealed" in that they don't expose any of the insides of the
card, to include any imaginary contacts for the switch. They
are just a piece of plastic, covering or uncovering a "notch"
in the side of the card.
Well it is obvious that you have your preferences and I have
mine. I might keep my eye out for a waterproof Flash Drive,
though. As it is I'm happy watching AVC/H.264 video off
my SD cards, on occasion.
Luck;
Ken
kony
<kma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The "switch circuit in the reader" just detects the presence
>of a notch at a particular spot on the left side of the SD card.
>The write protect switch on the SD card just changes where
>the notch is. It can be a very simple switch, not subject to
>any real "contact buildup".
True it's a very simple springy metal strip, which is what
makes it subject to buildup. Merely having a piece of
pocket lint lodged there would suffice to foul it.
Generally speaking, a switch with contacts exposed to the
outside world though a gap large enough particles bigger
than dust can get in, is a weakess in any device... though
even dust, given time, given other residue... I'm not
speaking of what will happen in a few months, rather what
might happen over the lifespan of a flash card.
> "Contact buildup" is mostly an environmental factor, (don't
>dip your cards in peanut butter prior to inserting them), but
>the contacts can be easily cleaned, in fact; given that they
>are bigger and more substantial than USB contacts, it would
>be easier than cleaning them. (The limited oxidation at the
>low current being applied to these contacts, makes this issue
>a joke.)
They are not more substantial, you are welcome to take some
old card and scratch away, it is only a copper pad with gold
plating while USB connectors in shells use a solid piece of
metal. The key is not the length and width of the pad, that
is irrelevant because it needs to make contact in one
spot-point where the reader slot contact is. Granted,
repeated insertion and removal will tend to self-clean it
some, I am not suggesting it is a terribly fragile interface
but that it is more prone to issues than full sized USB
connectors.
>
>> It is not much of an issue to consider but ultimately
>> if a careful examination is done I would have to consider
>> inclusion of a mechanical switch more prone to failure than
>> lack of one, particularly when it's contacts are exposed
>> through the slot to contamination opposed to a more sealed
>> switch.
>>
>
> All the write protect switches on the SD cards I have are
>"sealed" in that they don't expose any of the insides of the
>card, to include any imaginary contacts for the switch. They
>are just a piece of plastic, covering or uncovering a "notch"
>in the side of the card.
I am not speaking about the plastic slide piece in the card,
rather the switch in the reader. I have had that switch
fail on readers, and had people bring their leftover "junk"
to me which was just a reader that couldn't write because of
the switch. Granted if the reader has a shell that can be
popped open without damaging plastic lock-tabs that hold it
together, it is not difficult to fix such a problem.
> Well it is obvious that you have your preferences and I have
>mine. I might keep my eye out for a waterproof Flash Drive,
>though. As it is I'm happy watching AVC/H.264 video off
>my SD cards, on occasion.
>
My feeling is not that one is always superior to the other,
they both have their place depending on the use.