Transcend 512MB 45x SD card

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

I bought one of these last week from NewEgg for $96 (it's now $80
:-(). I find that syncing data to this card is significantly faster
than my Lexar 32x 256MB (Panasonic) card. I'm quite happy with it.

It was the least expensive ``fast'' card I could find.

Thanks.

Jeff

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:39:04 +0100, "Tiny Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com>
was understood to have stated the following:

>Palm did not state why they did not guarantee operation above 256MB. I have
>written back to query this and await a reply. I also not a similar caveat on
>the eXpansys website about card size limits in a T3. The Crucial site only
>recommends cards up to 128MB for a T3, even though they do have 256MB and
>512MB cards available.
>
>Has anyone had problems with a 512 MB card in a T3? What about 1GB?

I'm running two Panasonic 512mb cards with no issues.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In news:41249f6a$0$59891$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net,
Tiny Tim <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> informed us:

|
| Has anyone had problems with a 512 MB card in a T3? What about 1GB?

A friend and I got Tungstens aroudn the same time, I bought a T3 and he
picked up a T2, I think. He splurged on the bigger 512 card, and he just
went out and bought another one because he filled it up with mp3s. He's
been using it for months with no issues.

Tom

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Guy Bannis" <guy@ether.net> wrote in message
news:guy-1908041143290001@192.168.1.103...
> In article <41249f6a$0$59891$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, "Tiny
> Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > "We cannot currently guarantee complete compatibility when using any SD
card
> > over 256MB in a Palm Tungsten T3."
> >
> > Palm did not state why they did not guarantee operation above 256MB. I
have
> > written back to query this and await a reply.
>
> They probably can't state why because the reason is that they haven't
> tested larger capacity cards with the T3. It doesn't mean they won't work,
> but it does mean you may not get a reply soon.

My thoughts also. It just seems a bit pathetic that for a PDA of the class
of the T3 they were unable to reserve $500 or so from the development/test
budget to get a couple of larger cards and test them. I mean, what could the
issues be? - addressing the memory space; power issues. I'm not sure what
other problems there could be, and I presume there is some sort of standard
for SD cards etc..

When the machine is intended to handle documents, spreadsheets,
presentations, PDFs, photos, videos and audio etc. etc. it surely would have
been worth proving compatibility beyond 256MB rather than leaving it to
customers to take a chance and hope for the best. PalmOne must know how much
memory their design can address and whether they meet any standard power
requirements for SD cards. Is it so hard?

In their reply they say they do not guarantee "currently" - so do they have
plans to provide that guarantee later on? I've worked in IT for about 20
years from programmer, analyst, test manager, project manager through to
outsourcing bid manager and I think if the T3 was in my development
programme I would have been a little more thorough in understanding my
target market and their needs and aspirations and ensuring they would be
met.

Just my 2 cents :-)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

The world rejoiced as "Tiny Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Guy Bannis" <guy@ether.net> wrote in message
> news:guy-1908041143290001@192.168.1.103...
>> In article <41249f6a$0$59891$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, "Tiny
>> Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> > "We cannot currently guarantee complete compatibility when using any SD
> card
>> > over 256MB in a Palm Tungsten T3."
>> >
>> > Palm did not state why they did not guarantee operation above 256MB. I
> have
>> > written back to query this and await a reply.
>>
>> They probably can't state why because the reason is that they haven't
>> tested larger capacity cards with the T3. It doesn't mean they won't work,
>> but it does mean you may not get a reply soon.
>
> My thoughts also. It just seems a bit pathetic that for a PDA of the
> class of the T3 they were unable to reserve $500 or so from the
> development/test budget to get a couple of larger cards and test
> them. I mean, what could the issues be? - addressing the memory
> space; power issues. I'm not sure what other problems there could
> be, and I presume there is some sort of standard for SD cards etc..

a) It would doubtless cost _way_ more than $500 to do the testing.

b) The issue isn't the cost; it is of availability of the hardware

They did their testing with what hardware was available at the time
that they were doing hardware testing. 512MB SD cards were not
available to anyone, so they _could not_ test them.

Opening up the testing process would require taking staff away from
other tasks, and supposing they contracted this out, it might require
a whole lot of extra costs such as:

- Setting up a project plan for the "test process;"
- Setting up funding of the project;
- Negotiating rates with the contractees;
- Possibly other things,

All of which has to happen first.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
"Surely if the world can't get any other benefit from the existence of
Microsoft, at least people should stop arguing that popularity has any
connection with merit!" -- Brian Harvey <bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In the last exciting episode, "Tiny Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:2okp96Fbo9cqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> <snip>
>> > My thoughts also. It just seems a bit pathetic that for a PDA of the
>> > class of the T3 they were unable to reserve $500 or so from the
>> > development/test budget to get a couple of larger cards and test
>> > them. I mean, what could the issues be? - addressing the memory
>> > space; power issues. I'm not sure what other problems there could
>> > be, and I presume there is some sort of standard for SD cards etc..
>>
>> a) It would doubtless cost _way_ more than $500 to do the testing.
>>
>> b) The issue isn't the cost; it is of availability of the hardware
>>
>> They did their testing with what hardware was available at the time
>> that they were doing hardware testing. 512MB SD cards were not
>> available to anyone, so they _could not_ test them.
>>
>> Opening up the testing process would require taking staff away from
>> other tasks, and supposing they contracted this out, it might require
>> a whole lot of extra costs such as:
>>
>> - Setting up a project plan for the "test process;"
>> - Setting up funding of the project;
>> - Negotiating rates with the contractees;
>> - Possibly other things,
>>
>> All of which has to happen first.
>
> OK, but.... they must have tested some cards so the time/effort must
> have been in their plans already. They only had to swap a few test
> on some 256MB cards for tests on 512MB cards or just add a day or
> two to run through some extra 512MB tests. Unless there is anything
> other than addressability and power testing to perform then I can't
> see why it would take much effort.

There did not exist any time during the "T3 Project" during which
there existed 512MB cards.

Hardware testing took place during the project, and then the project
ended.

> As for the cost of the cards, I'm quite sure that suppliers would be
> happy to offer cards for free, so that they could get a "Palm T3
> approved" rating for marketing purposes.

Too late. The "T3 Project" is done. Palm's resources are being
allocated to other projects. There is no more time available to test
the product.

> If it is really the case that such cards were not available back in
> 2003 then surely PalmOne must have enough confidence in their design
> to be able to know whether larger cards will/should work, or could
> afford to run some rudimentary tests as the cards became
> available. After all, the T3 is still in production and presumably
> the subject of various support calls, with an associated support
> budget. I can't believe I am the only customer to have raised the
> query with them or that I am the only one disappointed in the
> answer.

There can be _no_ confidence in the exact capabilities and
compatibility of hardware that doesn't exist at the time testing was
done. Promise that it's compatible, and they'll get pilloried if the
next model winds up having some timing issue due to newer, faster
technologies.

> I'm not really looking for a reply. The above is just a brain dump
> based on my irritation with PalmOne for not being able to answer a
> most basic and reasonable question about their premier PDA.

You evidently haven't been involved with significant engineering
projects, at least not with vendors that feel the need to actually
keep their marketing promises.

The kinds of organizations that _would_ promise that the 512MB unit
was compatible are the sort from which I would be very reluctant to
buy products. They're likely to prove to be big, fat liars.

I'm watching disk issues turn out this way with the latest and
greatest of the SATA drives; controller vendors with the kind of
stupidity that lets them promise compatibility with "next year's
products" are getting the lies shown off by some of the latest
models...
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ntlug.org';
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #92. "If I ever talk to the hero on the
phone, I will not taunt him. Instead I will say that his dogged
perseverance has given me new insight on the futility of my evil ways
and that if he leaves me alone for a few months of quiet contemplation
I will likely return to the path of righteousness. (Heroes are
incredibly gullible in this regard.) <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:00:22 GMT, guy@ether.net (Guy Bannis) was
understood to have stated the following:

>Is it worth it for PalmOne to go back to test cards for a now-older device
>or put their QA and engineering resources on developing the next device
>... ?

What's even more incredible is you *know* one of the engineers who
designed this has probably picked up a larger SD card for other
equipment (say a camera) and has tested it in a personal T|3.

Regardless, I have a relatively new camera that accepts SD cards, so I
wasn't particularly concerned that I would be purchasing a 512mb for
naught. I *figured* that the T|3 would work with the 512s after the
"large card" patch was applied. So far I have had no problems with
either of my 512mb cards in any device. $500 is a bit much for me to
test a 1gb card right now, though. :-D


--

The last song I started on my PC was: Mist-Mannheim Steamroller-Mannheim Steamroller - Fresh Aire
This is track 12 of 42 in the current playlist.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"David W. Poole, Jr." <LauraBushMurderedHerBoyfriendIsATroll.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> writes:

> either of my 512mb cards in any device. $500 is a bit much for me to
> test a 1gb card right now, though. :-D

How about $176? The Transcend 45x 1G card is going that and the
Sandisk cards are even less.

http://opera.pricegrabber.com/sear [...] tal+%2B1gb

Makes me wonder if I should have waited a month or two...

Thanks.

Jeff

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:43:31 -0400, Jeffrey C Honig <jch@honig.net>
was understood to have stated the following:

>How about $176? The Transcend 45x 1G card is going that and the
>Sandisk cards are even less.

I would likes to see some benchmarks on the Transcend, and know who
manufacturers it.

As for SanDisc, well, you'd have a difficult time giving me one, much
less me purchasing one at any price. :-)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

In article <2otu61Fejs8dU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Peter Franks"
<hazard53@mailcan.removethis.com> wrote:

> I fail to see the reason that several people loathe SanDisc. It doesn't give
> me any problems, and gets decent reviews from users. Also, it's easier to
> find in my area. Found a Lexar at Wally World in the digital camera
> department, and that's all they had. Orifice Depot seems to only sell
> SanDisc in their retail stores.

From what I've read, the Sandisk 256MB SD cards are the problem ones. For
some reason, they're extremely slow.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"David W. Poole, Jr."
<TedKennedyMurderedHisMistress.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:tepli0l91vqnvnbbvlm5qhbn54brkc45nr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:11:10 -0400, "Peter Franks"
> <hazard53@mailcan.removethis.com> was understood to have stated the
> following:
>
> >
> >I fail to see the reason that several people loathe SanDisc. It doesn't
give
> >me any problems, and gets decent reviews from users. Also, it's easier to
> >find in my area. Found a Lexar at Wally World in the digital camera
> >department, and that's all they had. Orifice Depot seems to only sell
> >SanDisc in their retail stores.
>
> I've read in the groups of more problems with SanDisc than any other
> brand, which is one of the problems I have with them. Also, the only
> person I know who has had a problem with a memory cards was with a
> SanDisc. Particularly interesting in both of these regards is that
> each user has stated that the cards were useful at first, but gave up
> the ghost. In the case of my friend and some of the posters I've read,
> there has been unique content on these cards that could not be
> recovered. Data integrity is important to me, and given the data loss
> I've read others have had with SanDisc, I think I'll test another
> brand; all of my Panasonics seem to be doing well. I also have not
> been overly impressed with the speed of the few SanDisc cards I've had
> the opportunity to test.
>
> As in your locale, SanDisc fills most of the shelves in the SD area
> where I live. Fortunately the closest of the three local WallyWorlds
> has a reasonable chunk of Panasonics on the shelf. As for SanDisc to
> be on the shelves elsewhere, one would expect to find poop in a dog
> pen, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stick it in my PDA. :-)
>
> I hope the SanDisc continues to work out for you; you're one of the
> few I've read who have posted anything positive about the brand.
>

Thanks for your input. Important point, maybe: my PDA (T|E) is rather new,
the disks are newer. I consider myself warned. At the very least, I have
things on the disks that can be restored from XP in the long run.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Peter Franks" <hazard53@mailcan.removethis.com> wrote in
news:2p0ip6Ffgg6hU1@uni-berlin.de:

> Thanks for your input. Important point, maybe: my PDA (T|E)
> is rather new, the disks are newer. I consider myself
> warned. At the very least, I have things on the disks that
> can be restored from XP in the long run.

I don't trust XP that much. I keep backups of my SD card on
CDR. Not every day, but every couple of weeks or so. Most of
my data doesn't change that often. I also keep backups on
different cards.

--
Regards,

Stan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Guy Bannis" <guy@ether.net> wrote in message
news:guy-2108041945380001@192.168.1.103...
> In article <51rfi054t6u06hf98u0m8e39q8e5i5m1bb@4ax.com>,
> LauraBushMurderedHerBoyfriendIsATroll.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:00:22 GMT, guy@ether.net (Guy Bannis) was
>> understood to have stated the following:
>>
>> >Is it worth it for PalmOne to go back to test cards for a now-older
>> >device
>> >or put their QA and engineering resources on developing the next device
>> >... ?
>>
>> What's even more incredible is you *know* one of the engineers who
>> designed this has probably picked up a larger SD card for other
>> equipment (say a camera) and has tested it in a personal T|3.
>
> Yeah, but that's not the same thing as running Quality Assurance tests,
> which require a QA engineer, equipment, methodologies, and time.

I did get a further reply back from Palm and they confirmed that the reason
they do not guarantee operation above 256MB is through lack of (zero)
testing. They suggested I keep an eye on public forums to see what
experiences others are having.

With that in mind I have ordered a Kingmax 1GB card from ebuyer in the UK
and it should arrive by 9th September so I'll post back on my findings then.
The price was UK £83.91 including VAT and shipping. The product info states
"Higher Transfer Rate, Max : 10MB / sec" so I look forward to running
VFSMark on the card.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot (More info?)

"Tiny Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41404635$0$11709$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
> "Tiny Tim" <_tim_dodd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:413aef70$0$46314$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>> I did get a further reply back from Palm and they confirmed that the
>> reason they do not guarantee operation above 256MB is through lack of
>> (zero) testing. They suggested I keep an eye on public forums to see what
>> experiences others are having.
>>
>> With that in mind I have ordered a Kingmax 1GB card from ebuyer in the UK
>> and it should arrive by 9th September so I'll post back on my findings
>> then. The price was UK £83.91 including VAT and shipping. The product
>> info states "Higher Transfer Rate, Max : 10MB / sec" so I look forward to
>> running VFSMark on the card.
>
> Got the card 30 minutes ago. I haven't loaded any data yet but VFSMark
> results are below, for my T3....
>
> File Create: 953%
>
> File Delete: 819%
>
> File Write: 13%
>
> File Read: 736%
>
> File Seek: 1072%
>
> DB Export: 48%
>
> DB Import: 867%
>
> Record Access: 905%
>
> Resource Access: 872%
>
> VFSMark: 698

OK, I've loaded up about 850MB of programs, music and movies and everything
appears to be working perfectly. This is the first chance I've had to use my
T3 for multimedia (coz nothing works without a card) and I'm very pleased
with the results. I guess I can scratch the iPod from my wish list now :-)

VFSMark results seem to have become worse as the card has filled up. Here's
a second run....

VFSMark Results

File Create: 74%

File Delete: 72%

File Write: 13%

File Read: 725%

File Seek: 983%

DB Export: 46%

DB Import: 877%

Record Access: 841%

Resource Access: 800%

VFSMark: 492



But at least the card seems to be working fine :-)