Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sandisk Extreme III CF cards?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 5:13:22 AM

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

Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
-1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.


*****************************************************

"Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."

Tim Page in
"Dispatches"
by Michael Herr
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 5:13:23 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
> cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
> noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
> -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
>

I think it's a tossup in the camera. If you download from a reader, you
might see a difference. If I read it right, Sandisk is consistently
quicker.

--
Frank ess
March 5, 2005 5:13:23 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:

>Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
>cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
>noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
>-1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.

It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :) 

Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
between the two in practical use.

Buy whatever you prefer.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:38:03 PM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:3vudndsshL0gybTfRVn-1w@golden.net
| John A. Stovall wrote:
|
|| Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
|| cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
|| noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
|| -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
|
| It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :) 
|
| Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
| difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
| between the two in practical use.
|
| Buy whatever you prefer.

I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred the speed is greatly
appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in as a removeable
drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM and is
random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as a CDROM plus and
80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme III is more than
twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x) which means instead of waiting 5 mins for a
data download it takes a little over 2 mins. Now compare a 133x card to older 12x cards.
Even if you compare a 133x CF to a 80x CF it is still more than 50% faster.


--
Dave
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:38:04 PM

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

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:LflWd.24939$QQ3.12830@trnddc02...
> "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:3vudndsshL0gybTfRVn-1w@golden.net
> | John A. Stovall wrote:
> |
> || Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
> || cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
> || noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
> || -1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
> |
> | It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :) 
> |
> | Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
> | difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
> | between the two in practical use.
> |
> | Buy whatever you prefer.
>
> I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred
the speed is greatly
> appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in as
a removeable
> drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM
and is
> random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as
a CDROM plus and
> 80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme III
is more than
> twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x)

Nowhere close to that according to realworld testing.

Greg
March 5, 2005 7:38:04 PM

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

David H. Lipman wrote:

>|| Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
>|| cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x.
>|
>| It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :) 
>
>I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred the speed is greatly
>appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in as a removeable
>drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM and is
>random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as a CDROM plus and
>80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme III is more than
>twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x) which means instead of waiting 5 mins for a
>data download it takes a little over 2 mins. Now compare a 133x card to older 12x cards.
>Even if you compare a 133x CF to a 80x CF it is still more than 50% faster.

That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:38:05 PM

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

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:y6mdnVNlxax6l7ffRVn-3A@golden.net...
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>
> >|| Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
> >|| cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x.
> >|
> >| It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :) 
> >
> >I disagree. When you have a GigaByte or more of data being transferred
the speed is greatly
> >appreciated. I don't just use my CF cards with my dSLR. I also use in
as a removeable
> >drive for transporting software. A 1GB CF card holds more than a CDROM
and is
> >random-read/random-write as compared to a burn process read only media as
a CDROM plus and
> >80x CF or greater is faster than a CDROM with NO latency. The Extreme
III is more than
> >twice the speed of of an Ultra II (133x vs 60x) which means instead of
waiting 5 mins for a
> >data download it takes a little over 2 mins. Now compare a 133x card to
older 12x cards.
> >Even if you compare a 133x CF to a 80x CF it is still more than 50%
faster.
>
> That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
> what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

Greg
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:19:04 PM

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

| That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
| what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

That's only half the picture.


--
Dave
March 5, 2005 11:21:52 PM

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

Bill's right,

Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards & suit
the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.

Regards

DM

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:3vudndsshL0gybTfRVn-1w@golden.net...
> John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>>Looking at Rob Galbraith CF data base the new Sandisk Extreme III
>>cards have a slight edge in the Canon 20D over Lexar's 80x. It is
>>noticable or a "never mind". I'm getting ready to by 4 gig of CF, 2
>>-1gig and one 2gig and am debating between Sandisk and Lexar.
>
> It's a "won't ever notice the difference" kind of thing. :) 
>
> Using a stopwatch or other timing device, you can measure a slight speed
> difference. But your perceptions of performance won't feel any different
> between the two in practical use.
>
> Buy whatever you prefer.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:21:53 PM

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

In article <AxoWd.29152$8B3.3172@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
DM <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Bill's right,
>
>Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards & suit
>the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
>the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.

Wasn't the Sandisk the one which had some destructive
interactions with certain older card readers reported here in the last
month? That *might* be sufficient reason to skip that one unless you
are *sure* that it will *never* be read in an older reader.

I'm currently running a pair of 1GB Lexar 80x cards, and am
quite happy with them. (I may move to some 4GB ones later, to handle a
higher percentage of RAW images.)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:33:07 PM

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

| "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:y6mdnVNlxax6l7ffRVn-3A@golden.net...

>> That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which is
>> what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

| It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
| really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

| Greg


Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk CF card and the
Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP and the System
Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using the two different
rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91 CF Card Reader
done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon branded CF card but is
actually an OEM CF card for Canon.

BTW: WinME had better performance than Win2K which was slightly better than WinXP SP1.

--
Dave
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:33:08 PM

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

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:7IoWd.40826$uc.35335@trnddc01...
>
> | "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:y6mdnVNlxax6l7ffRVn-3A@golden.net...
>
> >> That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which
is
> >> what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.
>
> | It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
> | really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?
>
> | Greg
>
>
> Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk
CF card and the
> Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP
and the System
> Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using
the two different
> rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91
CF Card Reader
> done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon
branded CF card but is
> actually an OEM CF card for Canon.

That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...

Greg
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:58:04 AM

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

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:7IoWd.40826$uc.35335@trnddc01...
>
> | "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:y6mdnVNlxax6l7ffRVn-3A@golden.net...
>
> >> That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which
is
> >> what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.
>
> | It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
> | really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?
>
> | Greg
>
>
> Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk
CF card and the
> Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP
and the System
> Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using
the two different
> rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91
CF Card Reader
> done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon
branded CF card but is
> actually an OEM CF card for Canon.
>
> BTW: WinME had better performance than Win2K which was slightly better
than WinXP SP1.
>
> --
> Dave

You said in your earlier post that the Extreme III is more than twice as
fast as the Ultra II, but your test above was not with those cards. I agree
with the results you provided, but I did not see an appreciable difference
in speed between the U II and E III. And test results I've seen elsewhere
only show a 10-15% difference, no where near double.
March 6, 2005 3:58:14 AM

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

DoN,

Saw the thread but stayed out of the 'debate' as quite frankly I've never
had any problem with the cards despite using them in numerous readers
(though I had to admit my heart was in my mouth at the recent 'Focus On
Imaging' exhibition when the Epson Rep simply unplugged his card reader from
the MAC with the my card still inside!)

Regards

DM

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 0d98k$8nk$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <AxoWd.29152$8B3.3172@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> DM <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>Bill's right,
>>
>>Performance wise it's splitting hairs. Both are extremely quick cards &
>>suit
>>the 20D down to the ground. Personally, I use the Sandisk Extremes due to
>>the added guarantee re. performance at temperature extremes.
>
> Wasn't the Sandisk the one which had some destructive
> interactions with certain older card readers reported here in the last
> month? That *might* be sufficient reason to skip that one unless you
> are *sure* that it will *never* be read in an older reader.
>
> I'm currently running a pair of 1GB Lexar 80x cards, and am
> quite happy with them. (I may move to some 4GB ones later, to handle a
> higher percentage of RAW images.)
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
>
> --
> Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
> (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:05:48 AM

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

In article <GAsWd.29329$8B3.5897@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
DM <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>DoN,
>
>Saw the thread but stayed out of the 'debate' as quite frankly I've never
>had any problem with the cards despite using them in numerous readers

That is good news.

>(though I had to admit my heart was in my mouth at the recent 'Focus On
>Imaging' exhibition when the Epson Rep simply unplugged his card reader from
>the MAC with the my card still inside!)

Without unmounting the filesystem first? IIRC, on a Mac, you
unmount a filesystem (and eject on ejectable media) by dragging the icon
to the trash folder -- another thing designed to give one qualms the
first time it is done. :-)

On Windows 2000, I put the mouse over the icon for the flash
card, right-click, and select "eject" to unmount the filesystem.

On my Suns, I simply cd out of the mounted flash card (if I was
in there to start with), and then type "umount /fc0" or "umount /fc1"
depending on which slot it is in. (This all depends on the proper lines
already being /etc/fvstab, of course, otherwise the mount command can be
rather complex.)

Of course, it is going to get re-formatted in the camera
immediately afterwards, since I will have copied the images to two
separate directories on two different disks -- just to be sure, since
disks do fail from time to time.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:10:16 AM

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

| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:7IoWd.40826$uc.35335@trnddc01...

>> | "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
| news:y6mdnVNlxax6l7ffRVn-3A@golden.net...

>> >> That's all well and good, but in a digital camera like the 20D, which
| is
>> >> what we're discussing here, it won't make an appreciable difference.

>> | It won't even make that big of a difference in cardreaders. Does David
>> | really think that he's going to get more than twice the speed?

>> | Greg


>> Yes ! Yes I do, based on my past empirical tests using an older SanDisk
| CF card and the
>> Ultra II card using the Windows NT Performance Monitor on Win2K and WinXP
| and the System
>> Monitor on WinME for "File System" transfer rates. Tests were made using
| the two different
>> rated speed CF cards on a USB 2.0 interface (no hub) and a SanDisk SDDR-91
| CF Card Reader
>> done around June of last year. Note the older card was a 32MB Canon
| branded CF card but is
>> actually an OEM CF card for Canon.

| That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
| an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:

| http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...

| Greg


Greg:

I wish I had one to test ! But I will accept anothers table of results until I do.

--
Dave
March 6, 2005 4:10:17 AM

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

David H. Lipman wrote:

>| That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
>| an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:
>
>| http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...
>
>I wish I had one to test ! But I will accept anothers table of results until I do.

If you intend to do these tests on a computer instead of inside a
digital camera, it won't mean much to those here.

I for one am only interested in tests that show read/write speeds in
digital cameras where I intend to use the memory card.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 7:59:19 AM

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

| David H. Lipman wrote:
|
>|> That may have been the case comparing the older SanDisk card but comparing
>|> an Extreme III 2GB to an Ultra II 2GB isn't going to buy you that much:
>>
>|> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600...
>>
>> I wish I had one to test ! But I will accept anothers table of results until I do.
|
| If you intend to do these tests on a computer instead of inside a
| digital camera, it won't mean much to those here.
|
| I for one am only interested in tests that show read/write speeds in
| digital cameras where I intend to use the memory card.

It is half the picture Bill and provides actual numbers, not perception. Last time I looked
there were no utilities in digital cameras to benchmark transfer rates.

And when you get down to it, the table at
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600... was performed with the
following... *"The reader was a Lexar FireWire CompactFlash, model RW019; the computer a
Power Mac G5/Dual 2.0GHz with 1.5GB RAM running OS X 10.3.7."* So any tests I may do "for
myself" are in line with other's tests.

Lastly who knows how the 350D will operate since it came out relatively just after the
Extreme III cards wer put out on the market and Canon uses SanDisk OEM CF cards.

So please... Keep your mind open. ;-)

--
Dave
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 7:59:20 AM

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

In article <H6wWd.28434$uc.6667@trnddc09>,
David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>| David H. Lipman wrote:

[ ... ]

>| I for one am only interested in tests that show read/write speeds in
>| digital cameras where I intend to use the memory card.
>
>It is half the picture Bill and provides actual numbers, not perception. Last time I looked
>there were no utilities in digital cameras to benchmark transfer rates.

Put it in the camera, select multi-frame mode, hold down shutter
release until you hear the rate slow down because the buffer is full.
Then, start your stop watch, count ten images, and stop the stop watch.
This will give a transfer rate from the buffer to the CF card.

I really don't care *how* fast (or slow) it is from the card to
the computer. I'm not depending on it being ready for another shot at
that time. That is like the difference between the time to expose film
in our earlier cameras and the time to develop them. Two different
matters.

What matters to me is how fast they get written from the buffer
to the CF card, so there is room for the next shot. (And this, only in
special circumstances.)

If you want to use it to make a bootable filesystem for your
computer, that is a different matter (and really off topic for this
newsgroup). And there, there is a different limitation to worry about.
The number of write cycles for the typical CF card is finite, and a
computer using it to boot from is constantly updating things on it,
chewing up those precious write cycles. There are special CF cards
which are somewhat slower but with essentially unlimited write cycles
for that purpose.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
March 6, 2005 7:59:20 AM

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

David H. Lipman wrote:

> and provides actual numbers, not perception. Last time I looked
>there were no utilities in digital cameras to benchmark transfer rates.

Not a benchmark utility, but a reasonably decent measurable method. See
the tests your own link points to below.

>And when you get down to it, the table at
>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=600... was performed with the
>following... *"The reader was a Lexar FireWire CompactFlash, model RW019; the computer a
>Power Mac G5/Dual 2.0GHz with 1.5GB RAM running OS X 10.3.7."* So any tests I may do "for
>myself" are in line with other's tests.

Yup...and I'm not saying your tests are wrong, just not applicable to
what most users want to know - is card X faster than card Y in my
camera.

If you read all of the article, you know the important tests were those
conducted with actual cameras. High transfer speeds from the card reader
to a computer may be nice, but it's not the critical part of the process
of taking photos.

>Lastly who knows how the 350D will operate since it came out relatively just after the
>Extreme III cards wer put out on the market and Canon uses SanDisk OEM CF cards.
>
>So please... Keep your mind open. ;-)

My mind is open...to card/camera performance. :) 
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:26:15 AM

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

On 6 Mar 2005 01:05:48 -0500, DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> On Windows 2000, I put the mouse over the icon for the flash
> card, right-click, and select "eject" to unmount the filesystem.

This technique works on Mac OS X as well. (If you're not using a
multi-button mouse, hold down the "control" key when you click.)

> On my Suns, I simply cd out of the mounted flash card (if I was
> in there to start with), and then type "umount /fc0" or "umount /fc1"
> depending on which slot it is in.

Try this on your Mac, then:

% diskutil eject /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL
Disk /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL ejected

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:26:16 AM

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

In article <slrnd2l8k7.oc3.br@panix5.panix.com>,
Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>On 6 Mar 2005 01:05:48 -0500, DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Windows 2000, I put the mouse over the icon for the flash
>> card, right-click, and select "eject" to unmount the filesystem.
>
>This technique works on Mac OS X as well. (If you're not using a
>multi-button mouse, hold down the "control" key when you click.)
>
>> On my Suns, I simply cd out of the mounted flash card (if I was
>> in there to start with), and then type "umount /fc0" or "umount /fc1"
>> depending on which slot it is in.
>
>Try this on your Mac, then:
>
> % diskutil eject /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL
> Disk /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL ejected

I would -- except that I don't *own* a Mac. I do own a token
Windows system (for income tax programs and a very few other things not
yet supported on unix), and a bunch of unix boxen.. A Mac would do as
well as a Windows box for those things -- but they tend to cost more for
a seldom-used system. :-)

Thanks,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:26:17 AM

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

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 0e8t2$16t$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <slrnd2l8k7.oc3.br@panix5.panix.com>,
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
> >On 6 Mar 2005 01:05:48 -0500, DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Windows 2000, I put the mouse over the icon for the flash
> >> card, right-click, and select "eject" to unmount the filesystem.
> >
> >This technique works on Mac OS X as well. (If you're not using a
> >multi-button mouse, hold down the "control" key when you click.)
> >
> >> On my Suns, I simply cd out of the mounted flash card (if I was
> >> in there to start with), and then type "umount /fc0" or "umount /fc1"
> >> depending on which slot it is in.
> >
> >Try this on your Mac, then:
> >
> > % diskutil eject /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL
> > Disk /Volumes/EOS_DIGITAL ejected
>
> I would -- except that I don't *own* a Mac. I do own a token
> Windows system (for income tax programs and a very few other things not
> yet supported on unix), and a bunch of unix boxen..

What's a boxen? I don't see it in the dictionary. Are you a pretentious
UNIX admin who wishes they had a bunch of vaxen to admin? What UNIX boxes
do you own?

Greg
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:08:58 PM

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

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:03:35 -0800, G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> What's a boxen? I don't see it in the dictionary.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Boxen \Box"en\ (b[o^]ks"'n), a.
Made of boxwood; pertaining to, or resembling, the box
({Buxus}). [R.]

The faded hue of sapless boxen leaves. --Dryden.

From Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001) [jargon]:

boxen /bok'sn/ pl.n. [very common; by analogy with {VAXen}] Fanciful
plural of {box} often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to
describe commodity {{Unix}} hardware. The connotation is that any two
Unix boxen are interchangeable.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 8:08:59 PM

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

"Ben Rosengart" <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd2me9a.avi.br@panix5.panix.com...
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:03:35 -0800, G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > What's a boxen? I don't see it in the dictionary.
>
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>
> Boxen \Box"en\ (b[o^]ks"'n), a.
> Made of boxwood; pertaining to, or resembling, the box
> ({Buxus}). [R.]
>
> The faded hue of sapless boxen leaves. --Dryden.
>
> From Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001) [jargon]:
>
> boxen /bok'sn/ pl.n. [very common; by analogy with {VAXen}] Fanciful
> plural of {box} often encountered in the phrase `Unix boxen', used to
> describe commodity {{Unix}} hardware. The connotation is that any two
> Unix boxen are interchangeable.
>

Yep, pretentious jargon.

Greg
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:38:52 PM

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

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 10:29:21 -0800, G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> "Ben Rosengart" <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd2me9a.avi.br@panix5.panix.com...
>>
>> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>>
>> Boxen \Box"en\ (b[o^]ks"'n), a.
>> Made of boxwood; pertaining to, or resembling, the box
>> ({Buxus}). [R.]
>>
>> The faded hue of sapless boxen leaves. --Dryden.
>
> Yep, pretentious jargon.

Philistine. Nobody appreciates the Restoration poets any more.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 1:27:57 AM

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

In article <112llbr85qnk238@corp.supernews.com>,
G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news:D 0e8t2$16t$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...

[ ... ]

>> I would -- except that I don't *own* a Mac. I do own a token
>> Windows system (for income tax programs and a very few other things not
>> yet supported on unix), and a bunch of unix boxen..
>
>What's a boxen? I don't see it in the dictionary.

It is a common plural of "box" in the computer world -- and also
among players of button accordions. You won't find it in most
dictionarys, but you will find it in _The New Hacker's Dictionary_,
published by MIT Press.

> Are you a pretentious
>UNIX admin who wishes they had a bunch of vaxen to admin?

I do not wish to have even a single VAX, thank you. I am
currently a *retired* unix admin -- at least nobody is paying me to play
with these now. :-)

> What UNIX boxes
>do you own?

Hmm ... which order to use? O.K. In *service* at the moment:

3 ea Sun Ultra-2 -- various CPU clock speeds 200 MHZ through 400 MHz
(actually, one of the three is down awaiting new disks for a
fresh install of a newer version of Solaris.)

1 ea Sun Ultra-1/140 -- running OpenBSD, and serving as a firewall.

3 ea Sun SS-5 -- two 170 MHz, and one 110 MHz -- One running OpenBSD

1 ea Sun SS-20

2 ea Sun SS-10 -- one with two double ROSS CPU cards.

1 ea SUN LX still in service -- domain name server

1 ea Tadpole (Sun SPARC laptop) Booted only when needed.

1 ea Ancient IBM Thinkpad 760XD alternately running OpenBSD or
Windows in the field, depending on my needs. Again, booted only
when needed.

1 ea Shuttle SS51G Intel box running OpenBSD

1 ea Misc pentium running a modified Linux to control a Bridgeport
CNC milling machine.

1 ea Tower style 2.9 GHz Pentium 4, running Windows when I can't
avoid it, and scheduled for OpenBSD when I find unix equivalents
for the last of the programs. So -- yes, it is *not* a unix box
at the moment.

All Sun boxen may be presumed to be running some version of
Solaris or SunOs unless otherwise stated.

Aside from those, there are the *retired* machines, unix unless
otherwise stated:

1 ea) Altair 680b -- my first home machine. Obviously not unix, nor
really equipped with *any* OS.

1 ea) SWTP 6800 -- much modified. Not unix

1 ea) SWTP 6809 -- running OS-9 when last run. A sort of unix-like
OS which fit in under 64K of RAM.

1 ea) Cosmos CMS/UNX -- a 68000 based unix machine -- my first unix
box. Deadly slow. :-)

3 ea) Sun 2/140 machines -- Motorola 68010 CPU.

1 ea) Sun 3/140 machine -- Motorola 68020 CPU

2 ea) Sun 3/160 and 3/180 machines (same except that the /180 is
rackmount.

2 ea) Tektronix 6130 (NS 32016 CPU, BSD 4.2 variant.)

1 ea) Calma (IIRC) double-headed machine with built-in digitizing tablet
for drafting, etc, klugy version of Sys5 unix. CPU is the
Fairchild clipper.

? ea) Some spare SS-10 and SS-20 boxen not currently installed.

And there may be a few machines which I have forgotten.

Are you satisfied with your off-topic question?

We should probably drop this from this newsgroup.
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:20:42 PM

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

On 6 Mar 2005 22:27:57 -0500, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

>1 ea) Calma (IIRC) double-headed machine with built-in digitizing tablet
> for drafting, etc, klugy version of Sys5 unix. CPU is the
> Fairchild clipper.
ROTFLMAO! You must have a bigger apt. than I do.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Be careful. The toe you stepped on yesterday may be connected to the ass you have to kiss today." --Former mayor Ciancia
!