Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

flash memory read error

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:38:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently got a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 digital camera and a SanDisk
Ultra-II 512 MB flash memory card to replace the clearly too small 16
MB card that came with the camera. The camera took pictures just fine
with the 16 MB card, and I downloaded them into iPhoto using a
multi-format (CompactFlash, SmartMedia, SD, and maybe XD -- not sure
what the last slot is for) card reader I've had for a few years. When I
tried the same thing with the SanDisk card, I got an error "Unreadable
Files .. unrecognized file type or the files may not contain valid
data."

Opening a Finder window showed the 10 JPEG's, but they were unreadable,
both by iPhoto and Preview (Mac's viewer for JPEG and PDF files). When
I put the card in the camera and tried to format it, I got into trouble
as soon as I tried turning to "playback" mode, where the format menu
is. The camera gave me an error message, which I unfortunately did not
write down.

I checked SanDisk's web site, and as expected, it suggested formatting
the card -- which of course was impossible in the camera for the reason
just mentioned. I tried putting it in the card reader and plugging into
my Windows 98 machine (useful to keep one of those, even if you use a
Mac mostly as I do), but the machine hung up when I tried opening the
removable drive that now showed up. Tried twice.

I then plugged the card reader into my Mac, hoping that might work and
it did. I brought up DiskUtility and formatted the card, though I
wasn't sure about checking the box "Install Mac OS 9 Disk Driver." I
left that unchecked, figuring the camera/card reader were smart enough
to handle that and including it might mess things up in the camera. My
Mac formatted the card in an instant, I put it in the camera, checked
that "playback" did not give an error message and formatted the card in
the camera to play safe, took some more pictures, and tried downloading
them via the card reader. Same problem. But now, when I connected the
camera (with the card installed) via its USB cable, the photos
downloaded just fine. Which leads to my Q's:

1. It looks like the problem might be in the card reader. Given that
it's two and a half years old, might it be unable to read the larger
cards?

2. Is there much danger that the card itself is intermittently bad and
I'll lose photos some day?

Thanks for any help.

Martin
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:01:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

First, thanks for the quick response. Second, for the reminder that I
should have formatted the SanDisk card, just to play safe.

But there is still one conundrum: My Mac can read photos just fine
using the camera as the mass storage device (with the card), but not
when using the card reader -- then it gives the error message about the
files not being recognized or corrupted. Any thoughts on that? Thanks
again.

Martin
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:15:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 30 Apr 2005 14:38:06 -0700, hellman@stanford.edu wrote:

> 1. It looks like the problem might be in the card reader. Given that
> it's two and a half years old, might it be unable to read the larger
> cards?

I don't think so. 500 MB is not near one of the critical
boundaries. If it was a 2 or 4 GB card, then I'd be more concerned.


> 2. Is there much danger that the card itself is intermittently bad and
> I'll lose photos some day?

If the initial pictures stored on the card were done before it had
been formatted by you, whether in camera or in the reader, maybe the
camera had a problem only because the Sandisk card was initially
unformatted, or had a slightly incompatible format. Not enough to
prevent the camera from saving pictures, but leading to problems
when trying to read them back. Now that the card has been formatted
by the camera, you may never see another problem with it (unless it
is formatted off-camera). If the card really is defective, problems
probably won't show up "some day" far in the future, but very soon,
especially if you give the camera a real workout. Doing so will
cost very little, just a few pennies worth of battery power. As the
Lumix FZ20 is a new camera it won't be wasted time as you'd benefit
from becoming familiar with the camera's features and operating
idiosynchracies sooner rather than later.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 12:26:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks very much for the input. I went to Amazon and ordered the
SanDisk 8-in-1 reader. While reading the customer reviews, someone
mentioned a problem that may be involved: The faster cards require more
power than some USB ports can supply, particularly hubs. That is not my
problem since it occurred not only through a USB hub, but also when
plugged directly into the back of my iMac. However, there is a chance
the old reader could not supply as much power as the new card requires.

Martin
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 12:27:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks very much for the input. I went to Amazon and ordered the
SanDisk 8-in-1 reader. While reading the customer reviews, someone
mentioned a problem that may be involved: The faster cards require more
power than some USB ports can supply, particularly hubs. That is not my
problem since it occurred not only through a USB hub, but also when
plugged directly into the back of my iMac. However, there is a chance
the old reader could not supply as much power as the new card requires.

Martin
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 1:05:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

hellman@stanford.edu writes:
> Thanks very much for the input. I went to Amazon and ordered the
> SanDisk 8-in-1 reader. While reading the customer reviews, someone
> mentioned a problem that may be involved: The faster cards require more
> power than some USB ports can supply, particularly hubs. That is not my
> problem since it occurred not only through a USB hub, but also when
> plugged directly into the back of my iMac. However, there is a chance
> the old reader could not supply as much power as the new card requires.

If you have a laptop available, try plugging the card directly into a
PCMCIA slot with a CF to PCMCIA adapter. That bypasses all the USB
weirdness.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 1:47:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 30 Apr 2005 18:01:22 -0700, hellman@stanford.edu wrote:

> First, thanks for the quick response. Second, for the reminder that I
> should have formatted the SanDisk card, just to play safe.

If you thought that was quick . . . :) 


> But there is still one conundrum: My Mac can read photos just fine
> using the camera as the mass storage device (with the card), but not
> when using the card reader -- then it gives the error message about the
> files not being recognized or corrupted. Any thoughts on that? Thanks
> again.

I don't know much about Macs or standard USB card readers. My
card reader is SCSI (works with both Macs and PCs). The only thing
I can think of offhand is that being a new camera, your Lumix
probably has the ability to work with really large cards (4GB, 8GB,
etc.) so it probably uses the 32-bit FAT file system. Could it be
that your Mac is an older one that only recognizes drives formatted
using a 16-bit FAT? That still doesn't explain why the Mac can only
see the pictures when connected to the camera unless the card reader
really wasn't designed to work with with anything but the older file
systems (12-bit and 16-bit FATs). Small cards may default to a
16-bit FAT, which might explain why you had no similar problem with
the 16 MB card that came with the camera.

Now that the card is working in the camera, can your Win98 machine
access the card properly using the card reader? If not, it's
probably time to replace the card reader. If Win98 has no problems
accessing the pictures, then maybe something needs to be upgraded on
the Mac instead. If you know anyone that has a recent vintage Mac,
you might want to see if they can read your Sandisk card, both with
their reader, and also with yours.
May 1, 2005 1:58:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I'm sorry that I do not recall any details. However, there was a posting a
few weeks ago about a new SanDisk card that did not function well with an
older card reader. The poster said that SanDisk told him that with the
newest cards, he needs a new card reader, as the chip in the old one cannot
work with the newest cards. Inasmuch as a new card reader is only about
$10.-, that might be the way to go. Try it.

Good luck.

Morton

hellman@stanford.edu wrote:

> I recently got a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 digital camera and a SanDisk
> Ultra-II 512 MB flash memory card to replace the clearly too small 16
> MB card that came with the camera. The camera took pictures just fine
> with the 16 MB card, and I downloaded them into iPhoto using a
> multi-format (CompactFlash, SmartMedia, SD, and maybe XD -- not sure
> what the last slot is for) card reader I've had for a few years. When I
> tried the same thing with the SanDisk card, I got an error "Unreadable
> Files .. unrecognized file type or the files may not contain valid
> data."
>
> Opening a Finder window showed the 10 JPEG's, but they were unreadable,
> both by iPhoto and Preview (Mac's viewer for JPEG and PDF files). When
> I put the card in the camera and tried to format it, I got into trouble
> as soon as I tried turning to "playback" mode, where the format menu
> is. The camera gave me an error message, which I unfortunately did not
> write down.
>
> I checked SanDisk's web site, and as expected, it suggested formatting
> the card -- which of course was impossible in the camera for the reason
> just mentioned. I tried putting it in the card reader and plugging into
> my Windows 98 machine (useful to keep one of those, even if you use a
> Mac mostly as I do), but the machine hung up when I tried opening the
> removable drive that now showed up. Tried twice.
>
> I then plugged the card reader into my Mac, hoping that might work and
> it did. I brought up DiskUtility and formatted the card, though I
> wasn't sure about checking the box "Install Mac OS 9 Disk Driver." I
> left that unchecked, figuring the camera/card reader were smart enough
> to handle that and including it might mess things up in the camera. My
> Mac formatted the card in an instant, I put it in the camera, checked
> that "playback" did not give an error message and formatted the card in
> the camera to play safe, took some more pictures, and tried downloading
> them via the card reader. Same problem. But now, when I connected the
> camera (with the card installed) via its USB cable, the photos
> downloaded just fine. Which leads to my Q's:
>
> 1. It looks like the problem might be in the card reader. Given that
> it's two and a half years old, might it be unable to read the larger
> cards?
>
> 2. Is there much danger that the card itself is intermittently bad and
> I'll lose photos some day?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Martin
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 30 Apr 2005 20:26:20 -0700, hellman@stanford.edu wrote:

> While reading the customer reviews, someone mentioned a problem that
> may be involved: The faster cards require more power than some USB ports
> can supply, particularly hubs. That is not my problem since it occurred not
> only through a USB hub, but also when plugged directly into the back of my
> iMac. However, there is a chance the old reader could not supply as much
> power as the new card requires.

That seems a bit implausible. The cards *might* require a little
more power when writing to them, but there really shouldn't be much
of a power requirement if you're only going to read from the cards.
And if there's a power limit anywhere, it would be within the
reader. All USB ports, whether in a computer or part of a hub are
required by the USB spec. to be able to provide a lot of current,
far more than any flash card or card reader would ever need. That's
not to say that a new reader won't be the solution to your card's
problem.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:30:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

hellman@stanford.edu wrote:
> Thanks very much for the input. I went to Amazon and ordered the
> SanDisk 8-in-1 reader. While reading the customer reviews, someone
> mentioned a problem that may be involved: The faster cards require more
> power than some USB ports can supply, particularly hubs. That is not my
> problem since it occurred not only through a USB hub, but also when
> plugged directly into the back of my iMac. However, there is a chance
> the old reader could not supply as much power as the new card requires.
>
> Martin
>

Even your iMac may not provide enough power. Check the specs on the USB
port. Some devices just need a separate power supply to work properly.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:32:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2005 20:26:20 -0700, hellman@stanford.edu wrote:
>
>
>>While reading the customer reviews, someone mentioned a problem that
>>may be involved: The faster cards require more power than some USB ports
>>can supply, particularly hubs. That is not my problem since it occurred not
>>only through a USB hub, but also when plugged directly into the back of my
>>iMac. However, there is a chance the old reader could not supply as much
>>power as the new card requires.
>
>
> That seems a bit implausible. The cards *might* require a little
> more power when writing to them, but there really shouldn't be much
> of a power requirement if you're only going to read from the cards.
> And if there's a power limit anywhere, it would be within the
> reader. All USB ports, whether in a computer or part of a hub are
> required by the USB spec. to be able to provide a lot of current,
> far more than any flash card or card reader would ever need. That's
> not to say that a new reader won't be the solution to your card's
> problem.
>

Also not to say a poorly designed, or defective, reader may not require
more power than a hub is able to provide, especially if it doesn't have
its own supply, and is already powering two or three more devices..


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 9:33:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:32:01 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Also not to say a poorly designed, or defective, reader may not require
> more power than a hub is able to provide, especially if it doesn't have
> its own supply, and is already powering two or three more devices..

It's a possibility, but to make an analogy, problems with the card
reader might be like having problems with your camera not charging
properly when sitting in its charging dock. The problem being
caused because the dock is plugged into an AC circuit that has a
toaster oven and a coffee maker pulling the voltage down too low
(due to really old, insufficient wiring), a new, improved dock
probably wouldn't help much. Unplug the card reader from the USB
line and the other power hungry devices on it which are the real
problem, would still be drawing too much current. A newer card
reader *might* draw less current, but it's the other devices
overloading the USB. I'd be surprised if hubs couldn't supply
enough current to power a dozen or more card readers. Each port on
the hub has to deliver the amount of current required by the USB
spec., which seems to imply that external hubs must have their own
power supplies if they provide more than one port. And if they only
have a single port, where do they come off calling themselves a hub?
:) 
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 2:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:32:01 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Also not to say a poorly designed, or defective, reader may not require
>>more power than a hub is able to provide, especially if it doesn't have
>>its own supply, and is already powering two or three more devices..
>
>
> It's a possibility, but to make an analogy, problems with the card
> reader might be like having problems with your camera not charging
> properly when sitting in its charging dock. The problem being
> caused because the dock is plugged into an AC circuit that has a
> toaster oven and a coffee maker pulling the voltage down too low
> (due to really old, insufficient wiring), a new, improved dock
> probably wouldn't help much. Unplug the card reader from the USB
> line and the other power hungry devices on it which are the real
> problem, would still be drawing too much current. A newer card
> reader *might* draw less current, but it's the other devices
> overloading the USB. I'd be surprised if hubs couldn't supply
> enough current to power a dozen or more card readers. Each port on
> the hub has to deliver the amount of current required by the USB
> spec., which seems to imply that external hubs must have their own
> power supplies if they provide more than one port. And if they only
> have a single port, where do they come off calling themselves a hub?
> :) 
>
Sorry, but there are powered, and unpowered hubs. The ones without
their own power supply supply ONLY the power from the USB port (which is
intended for a single device).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 6:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:33:34 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Sorry, but there are powered, and unpowered hubs. The ones without
> their own power supply supply ONLY the power from the USB port (which
> is intended for a single device).

That I don't understand. But I'm using an old computer that lacks
a USB port. It was my understanding that USB peripherals
daisy-chained from one device to another, similar to the way SCSI
devices do. But peering into the back of my parallel connected
printer I see only a single USB socket, so it appears that there's
no daisy chaining involved, and hubs are needed to connect multiple
peripherals to a single USB port on the computer. But what I still
don't understand is that unless a hub only provides a single port
(and I'd think that any self respecting hub would need to provide 2
or more USB ports), it would require a power supply to meet USB
specifications that guarantees a certain amount of available current
at each port. I can see USB peripherals having their own power
supply to lighten the load, but the hub couldn't assume that. Each
of its ports would have to be able to supply whatever the peripheral
requires, up to the current level guaranteed by the USB spec.

A fake concrete example here. Fake because without checking at
usb.org I don't recall the actual current each port has to be able
to provide. But assuming that it's one amp. (my guess is somewhere
around 700ma), then the computer's USB port would be required to
supply up to one amp., no more than that. If a 4-port USB hub that
had no power supply was connected to the computer's USB port, it
couldn't count on drawing more than one amp from it. But according
to the USB spec., the hub would have to be designed to supply up to
4 amps total, allowing up to, but no more than 1 amp to each of its
own ports. But that's 4 times more than what the computer's USB
port is guaranteed to provide. I could see a 4-port hub that could
work without its own external power supply as long as it was never
expected to supply more than about the one amp. that it's able to
draw from the port that it's connected to, but it would seem that
to be "legal" it would have to be designed to accept an external
power supply, whether it was sold with one or not, so that each of
its ports could provide the minimum current that the USB spec.
requires. If this isn't the way it works, I guess I've made another
invalid assumption (or two), but what would it/they be?
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 7:51:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 10:33:34 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry, but there are powered, and unpowered hubs. The ones without
>>their own power supply supply ONLY the power from the USB port (which
>>is intended for a single device).
>
>
> That I don't understand. But I'm using an old computer that lacks
> a USB port. It was my understanding that USB peripherals
> daisy-chained from one device to another, similar to the way SCSI
> devices do. But peering into the back of my parallel connected
> printer I see only a single USB socket, so it appears that there's
> no daisy chaining involved, and hubs are needed to connect multiple
> peripherals to a single USB port on the computer. But what I still
> don't understand is that unless a hub only provides a single port
> (and I'd think that any self respecting hub would need to provide 2
> or more USB ports), it would require a power supply to meet USB
> specifications that guarantees a certain amount of available current
> at each port. I can see USB peripherals having their own power
> supply to lighten the load, but the hub couldn't assume that. Each
> of its ports would have to be able to supply whatever the peripheral
> requires, up to the current level guaranteed by the USB spec.
>
> A fake concrete example here. Fake because without checking at
> usb.org I don't recall the actual current each port has to be able
> to provide. But assuming that it's one amp. (my guess is somewhere
> around 700ma), then the computer's USB port would be required to
> supply up to one amp., no more than that. If a 4-port USB hub that
> had no power supply was connected to the computer's USB port, it
> couldn't count on drawing more than one amp from it. But according
> to the USB spec., the hub would have to be designed to supply up to
> 4 amps total, allowing up to, but no more than 1 amp to each of its
> own ports. But that's 4 times more than what the computer's USB
> port is guaranteed to provide. I could see a 4-port hub that could
> work without its own external power supply as long as it was never
> expected to supply more than about the one amp. that it's able to
> draw from the port that it's connected to, but it would seem that
> to be "legal" it would have to be designed to accept an external
> power supply, whether it was sold with one or not, so that each of
> its ports could provide the minimum current that the USB spec.
> requires. If this isn't the way it works, I guess I've made another
> invalid assumption (or two), but what would it/they be?
>
If I recall correctly, the USB port provides 500ma. I have a MS
'Natural Keyboard', that has a USB port in it, and NOTHING I have
plugged into it will work, but plugging them into my hub, which has its
own power supply rated for 500ma PER JACK, things work fine. That is,
they did until last week when it quite working, now nothing plugged into
it works...
It appears that the keyboard draws about as much as the USB port can
supply, all by itself. I went back to the HP keyboard because it is
smaller, and has a better 'feel'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 9:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:51:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> If I recall correctly, the USB port provides 500ma. I have a MS
> 'Natural Keyboard', that has a USB port in it, and NOTHING I have
> plugged into it will work, but plugging them into my hub, which has its
> own power supply rated for 500ma PER JACK, things work fine. That is,
> they did until last week when it quite working, now nothing plugged into
> it works...

Well, that doesn't clear up very much. I just got through
explaining how I "mistakenly" thought that USB devices could
daisy-chain, and you provide an example implying that it does. :) 

Are both USB connectors on the keyboard the same, and if so, does
the keyboard work if you use the other connector to attach to the
computer? The hub (now broken) that you mention works as I assumed
hubs should work. I still doubt that a multiport hub that has no
provision for an external power supply could be registered as an
approved USB device.


> It appears that the keyboard draws about as much as the USB port can
> supply, all by itself. I went back to the HP keyboard because it is
> smaller, and has a better 'feel'.

I've worked with many keyboards going back to where they didn't
use low power ICs, but had lots of 7400 series ICs and transistors
inside. They may have drawn an appreciable current, but I've never
heard of a modern keyboard that did. As far as I know, the biggest
energy consumption on keyboards these days are the LED indicators on
them. Or perhaps the USB circuits. But if any company feels free
to do things their own way, MS would be the one. In use, does MS's
Natural Keyboard seem warmer than ambient? :) 
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:46:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:51:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>If I recall correctly, the USB port provides 500ma. I have a MS
>>'Natural Keyboard', that has a USB port in it, and NOTHING I have
>>plugged into it will work, but plugging them into my hub, which has its
>>own power supply rated for 500ma PER JACK, things work fine. That is,
>>they did until last week when it quite working, now nothing plugged into
>>it works...
>
>
> Well, that doesn't clear up very much. I just got through
> explaining how I "mistakenly" thought that USB devices could
> daisy-chain, and you provide an example implying that it does. :) 
>
> Are both USB connectors on the keyboard the same, and if so, does
> the keyboard work if you use the other connector to attach to the
> computer? The hub (now broken) that you mention works as I assumed
> hubs should work. I still doubt that a multiport hub that has no
> provision for an external power supply could be registered as an
> approved USB device.
>
>
>
>>It appears that the keyboard draws about as much as the USB port can
>>supply, all by itself. I went back to the HP keyboard because it is
>>smaller, and has a better 'feel'.
>
>
> I've worked with many keyboards going back to where they didn't
> use low power ICs, but had lots of 7400 series ICs and transistors
> inside. They may have drawn an appreciable current, but I've never
> heard of a modern keyboard that did. As far as I know, the biggest
> energy consumption on keyboards these days are the LED indicators on
> them. Or perhaps the USB circuits. But if any company feels free
> to do things their own way, MS would be the one. In use, does MS's
> Natural Keyboard seem warmer than ambient? :) 
>

The keyboard instructions indicate that plugging in USB powered devices
might exceed the amount of drain the port can supply. In my single
test, a USB card reader, that was the case. It didn't work, and with it
plugged in, neither did the keyboard....

NOT ALL USB hubs are powered externally. Check out some of those made
for laptops. They are so compact they don't have room for a power
supply plug!

http://www.keyspan.com/products/usb/uhm4/

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/bus/USB/hubs.mspx#...

http://www.lg-internet.com/catalog/advanced_search_resu...

As you can see, all three types exist.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:47:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 15:51:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>If I recall correctly, the USB port provides 500ma. I have a MS
>>'Natural Keyboard', that has a USB port in it, and NOTHING I have
>>plugged into it will work, but plugging them into my hub, which has its
>>own power supply rated for 500ma PER JACK, things work fine. That is,
>>they did until last week when it quite working, now nothing plugged into
>>it works...
>
>
> Well, that doesn't clear up very much. I just got through
> explaining how I "mistakenly" thought that USB devices could
> daisy-chain, and you provide an example implying that it does. :) 
>
> Are both USB connectors on the keyboard the same, and if so, does
> the keyboard work if you use the other connector to attach to the
> computer? The hub (now broken) that you mention works as I assumed
> hubs should work. I still doubt that a multiport hub that has no
> provision for an external power supply could be registered as an
> approved USB device.
>
>
>
>>It appears that the keyboard draws about as much as the USB port can
>>supply, all by itself. I went back to the HP keyboard because it is
>>smaller, and has a better 'feel'.
>
>
> I've worked with many keyboards going back to where they didn't
> use low power ICs, but had lots of 7400 series ICs and transistors
> inside. They may have drawn an appreciable current, but I've never
> heard of a modern keyboard that did. As far as I know, the biggest
> energy consumption on keyboards these days are the LED indicators on
> them. Or perhaps the USB circuits. But if any company feels free
> to do things their own way, MS would be the one. In use, does MS's
> Natural Keyboard seem warmer than ambient? :) 
>
Never noticed as I keep my computer area rather cool. It does try to
tell MS every time I reboot, though. Another reason I disconnected it...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 4:27:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The new reader came and works fine with the large card. So new cards
may not work with some old card readers. Agreed that it's not a big
deal $ wise, but it's nice to know that even $30 plus the time to get
the reader was worth it. Hence this posting for others who wander into
this thread with a similar problem.

Martin
!