Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SD card readers - on speeds & do page size issues exist?

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:53:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Hey all,

I have always assumed that mostly all USB 2.0 SD card readers (multi
or SD only) should have no problem reading and writing at
approximately the same speed (dependent on the card and any issues
with the way your system is set up). In other words, a the speed of a
high speed USB 2.0 compliant card readers should not vary
significantly between readers.

However, when doing some research in another matter I came up with
this statement:

"Word of warning: Not all USB(2) card readers handle SD cards with
512Mb memory pages (i.e. 1Gb and above...) Some readers were designed
for the older 128Mb paging spec and cause serious performance
issues...."

Does anyone know if this issue really exists and some card readers
have performance issues with 512 mb memory pages? If so, anyone know
how to find out whether a card reader has this issue, other then by
asking the manufacturer who might not know?

Secondly, anyone have any experience or heard of any SD card readers
being significantly slower then other readers, assuming all are really
USB 2.0 highspeed devices (and don't just say they are USB 2.0 when
they aren't actually USB 2.0). Anyone know why such issues could
exist?

Also, I'm mainly looking at the theory now. I'm not particularly
interested in a list of card readers that are fast at the moment.

Thanks all
March 15, 2005 1:06:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
news:3bafcd2d.0503150453.7980d665@posting.google.com...
> Hey all,
>
> I have always assumed that mostly all USB 2.0 SD card readers (multi
> or SD only) should have no problem reading and writing at
> approximately the same speed (dependent on the card and any issues
> with the way your system is set up). In other words, a the speed of a
> high speed USB 2.0 compliant card readers should not vary
> significantly between readers.
>
> However, when doing some research in another matter I came up with
> this statement:
>
> "Word of warning: Not all USB(2) card readers handle SD cards with
> 512Mb memory pages (i.e. 1Gb and above...) Some readers were designed
> for the older 128Mb paging spec and cause serious performance
> issues...."
>
> Does anyone know if this issue really exists and some card readers
> have performance issues with 512 mb memory pages? If so, anyone know
> how to find out whether a card reader has this issue, other then by
> asking the manufacturer who might not know?
>
> Secondly, anyone have any experience or heard of any SD card readers
> being significantly slower then other readers, assuming all are really
> USB 2.0 highspeed devices (and don't just say they are USB 2.0 when
> they aren't actually USB 2.0). Anyone know why such issues could
> exist?
>
> Also, I'm mainly looking at the theory now. I'm not particularly
> interested in a list of card readers that are fast at the moment.
>
> Thanks all

You can avoid the problem by getting Card Export. You use the Palm as a card
reader. It is even faster than my "real" card reader.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:16:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...
> You can avoid the problem by getting Card Export. You use the Palm as a card
> reader. It is even faster than my "real" card reader.

As said, I'm not particularly interested in brands of card readers at
the moment. And perhaps I should have made this clear but I do not
have a Palm. Yes perhaps I should not have posted to this group but I
did make clear my question and the reason I posted to the Palm group
is because it is something which a lot of Palm readers should have
knowledge of.

Also, I'm quite sceptical of your claim. This would suggest that card
readers are slow and not capable of reading the maximum speed of a SD
card which I have seen no evidence of in many cases. In fact, I have
seen quite a lot of evidence the card reader in PDAs are very slow,
especially with writing, altho admitedly this has been with Axims not
Palms.

In any case, even if I did have a Palm, there could be numerous
reasons why I would want a card reader even if my Palm could do (which
I doubt as said above). For example, it might be useful to take with
me instead of my Palm if I just want to move data. Or for example, if
I am forced to leave my Palm at work or whatever (say I'm going out
for a night in town and don't regard my Palm as a suitable fashion
accessory and don't want to leave it in my car) but still want to be
able to carry my data around and read it at home. I'm sure I could
come up with other reasons why I might want a card reader even if I
did have a Palm but that's kind of pointless since want I want to do
is up to me really... If it's not something you would do, well I never
asked for suggestions on what else I can do mainly because I didn't
want them.

Thanks for the reply tho.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:49:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Seriously if there is a problem with the one you are using a new one will be
$15-20, hardly and issue.

"Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
news:3bafcd2d.0503150453.7980d665@posting.google.com...
> Hey all,
>
> I have always assumed that mostly all USB 2.0 SD card readers (multi
> or SD only) should have no problem reading and writing at
> approximately the same speed (dependent on the card and any issues
> with the way your system is set up). In other words, a the speed of a
> high speed USB 2.0 compliant card readers should not vary
> significantly between readers.
>
> However, when doing some research in another matter I came up with
> this statement:
>
> "Word of warning: Not all USB(2) card readers handle SD cards with
> 512Mb memory pages (i.e. 1Gb and above...) Some readers were designed
> for the older 128Mb paging spec and cause serious performance
> issues...."
>
> Does anyone know if this issue really exists and some card readers
> have performance issues with 512 mb memory pages? If so, anyone know
> how to find out whether a card reader has this issue, other then by
> asking the manufacturer who might not know?
>
> Secondly, anyone have any experience or heard of any SD card readers
> being significantly slower then other readers, assuming all are really
> USB 2.0 highspeed devices (and don't just say they are USB 2.0 when
> they aren't actually USB 2.0). Anyone know why such issues could
> exist?
>
> Also, I'm mainly looking at the theory now. I'm not particularly
> interested in a list of card readers that are fast at the moment.
>
> Thanks all
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:49:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:<_xRZd.304$C7.87@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> Seriously if there is a problem with the one you are using a new one will be
> $15-20, hardly and issue.

Perhaps I should have made this more clear but I do not have a card
reader at the moment. Even if I did have a card reader, I also asked
how to know if a (notice I never said my card reader) card reader has
this problem since if I don't know, how am I going to know whether to
buy a new one (assuming I had one which I don't)? Of course, I could
test the speed but this is not very reliable since it's diffucult to
test the reason for the slow speed. The own way I could think of to
test the speed would be to get two cards exactly the same brand etc
but one 512mb and one 1gb which isn't particularly pratical.

However, I don't really see any reason to go into such details until I
know if the issue actually exists. If it doesn't exist, we are
basically discussing nothing.

So again, does the issue exist?

In case your wondering the reasons I don't want a list of brands which
seem to work fast is because such a list is probably pointless to me
since I probably couldn't get half the things on that list and the
other half would be too expensive to consider unless perhaps there was
a reason to consider them (such as if the issue existed). Bear in mind
I never said I live in the US and I could be earning $1 a day so
$15-$20 may very well be an issue.

Thanks for the reply tho
March 16, 2005 10:49:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

In article <3bafcd2d.0503160324.203d82c5@posting.google.com>, nil_einne1
@email.com says...
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:<_xRZd.304$C7.87@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > Seriously if there is a problem with the one you are using a new one will be
> > $15-20, hardly and issue.
>
> Perhaps I should have made this more clear but I do not have a card
> reader at the moment. Even if I did have a card reader, I also asked
> how to know if a (notice I never said my card reader) card reader has
> this problem since if I don't know, how am I going to know whether to
> buy a new one (assuming I had one which I don't)? Of course, I could
> test the speed but this is not very reliable since it's diffucult to
> test the reason for the slow speed. The own way I could think of to
> test the speed would be to get two cards exactly the same brand etc
> but one 512mb and one 1gb which isn't particularly pratical.
>
> However, I don't really see any reason to go into such details until I
> know if the issue actually exists. If it doesn't exist, we are
> basically discussing nothing.
>
> So again, does the issue exist?
>
> In case your wondering the reasons I don't want a list of brands which
> seem to work fast is because such a list is probably pointless to me
> since I probably couldn't get half the things on that list and the
> other half would be too expensive to consider unless perhaps there was
> a reason to consider them (such as if the issue existed). Bear in mind
> I never said I live in the US and I could be earning $1 a day so
> $15-$20 may very well be an issue.
>
> Thanks for the reply tho
>


Whether or not a "Card Reader" will work (or work well) for any given memory
card, at any given time, is much more dependant on the operating system of
the computer you are connecting it to.

That has been my experience.

Windows 95, 98, and to some extent 98se, are problematic in their acceptance
of card readers of the USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 breed.

Until and unless the OS is at the level of Windows 2000/Xp, card reader
performance can be perfect on some machines, and sporadic on others.

I must also tell you that I have two card readers that came labeled USB 2.0
ONLY on their package. True to form, they will connect to USB 1.0, but will
not reliably work. To use them this way requires copying files ONE AT A TIME
or they will cause unusual errors, and may trash the file structure. Both of
these card readers are DAZZLE multi-card readers purchased at Radio Shack.

I have several card readers that wouldn't work at all with Windows 98, only
worked poorly with 98se, and work perfectly with Windows XP (until service
pack 2 which made one of them fail). All of these are USB 2.0 (and USB 1.0
backward compatible)

As with all things, if you get your card reader for $6 to $8 (US) then the
chances of it being "Flakey" are better than if you paid $15 to $30 (US).

Your country of origin doesn't enter the equation, not does the wage you
earn, you still get what you pay for no matter how much or how little you
earn.

As for knowing if there is a problem with the card reader, there is no way to
know in advance whether its about to fail. Your first warning (in my
experience) will be a failure.

At home, Im never in a hurry to get the pictures off my cards, so I use
whatever is attatched to the computer Im using. Sometimes that is only a USB
cable to hook to the camera.

At an event, where Im doing "On site delivery" of proofs, speed becomes
important, and I use a computer that has a "built-in" card reader hooked to a
proprietary motherboard connection. Then, and only then does the "card
speed" make a difference to me, as I need to get the pictures into Photoshop,
and sent to the proof printer as fast as possible.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
March 16, 2005 12:39:58 PM

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

On 2005-03-16, Nil Einne <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote:
> "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...
>> You can avoid the problem by getting Card Export. You use the Palm as a card
>> reader. It is even faster than my "real" card reader.
>
> As said, I'm not particularly interested in brands of card readers at
> the moment. And perhaps I should have made this clear but I do not
> have a Palm. Yes perhaps I should not have posted to this group but I
> did make clear my question and the reason I posted to the Palm group
> is because it is something which a lot of Palm readers should have
> knowledge of.
>
> Also, I'm quite sceptical of your claim. This would suggest that card
> readers are slow and not capable of reading the maximum speed of a SD
> card which I have seen no evidence of in many cases. In fact, I have
> seen quite a lot of evidence the card reader in PDAs are very slow,
> especially with writing, altho admitedly this has been with Axims not
> Palms.
>
> In any case, even if I did have a Palm, there could be numerous
> reasons why I would want a card reader even if my Palm could do (which
> I doubt as said above). For example, it might be useful to take with
> me instead of my Palm if I just want to move data. Or for example, if
> I am forced to leave my Palm at work or whatever (say I'm going out
> for a night in town and don't regard my Palm as a suitable fashion
> accessory and don't want to leave it in my car) but still want to be
> able to carry my data around and read it at home. I'm sure I could
> come up with other reasons why I might want a card reader even if I
> did have a Palm but that's kind of pointless since want I want to do
> is up to me really... If it's not something you would do, well I never
> asked for suggestions on what else I can do mainly because I didn't
> want them.
>
> Thanks for the reply tho.

There is also the "problem" with the speed of the SD itself. I just
bought a 256 meg sd card that is marked/claimed to be 60x faster than
standard; had found that the 60x is at 10 mbps for read access.

Also as a 1st time user, I had purchased a refurbished m125 & found
that Palm had a filemanager update for the m125 allowing it to access
256 meg & higher sd memory card.

Looks like many factors as to whether any sd card will work!
March 16, 2005 3:38:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
news:3bafcd2d.0503160316.335367bf@posting.google.com...
> "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...
> > You can avoid the problem by getting Card Export. You use the Palm as a
card
> > reader. It is even faster than my "real" card reader.
>
> As said, I'm not particularly interested in brands of card readers at
> the moment. And perhaps I should have made this clear but I do not
> have a Palm. Yes perhaps I should not have posted to this group but I
> did make clear my question and the reason I posted to the Palm group
> is because it is something which a lot of Palm readers should have
> knowledge of.
>
> Also, I'm quite sceptical of your claim. This would suggest that card
> readers are slow and not capable of reading the maximum speed of a SD
> card which I have seen no evidence of in many cases. In fact, I have
> seen quite a lot of evidence the card reader in PDAs are very slow,
> especially with writing, altho admitedly this has been with Axims not
> Palms.

The word is "skeptical", not "sceptical", and I don't care what you think
you know. All I said was _my_ card reader is not as fast, not _all_ card
readers...

>
> In any case, even if I did have a Palm, there could be numerous
> reasons why I would want a card reader even if my Palm could do (which
> I doubt as said above). For example, it might be useful to take with
> me instead of my Palm if I just want to move data. Or for example, if
> I am forced to leave my Palm at work or whatever (say I'm going out
> for a night in town and don't regard my Palm as a suitable fashion
> accessory and don't want to leave it in my car) but still want to be
> able to carry my data around and read it at home. I'm sure I could
> come up with other reasons why I might want a card reader even if I
> did have a Palm but that's kind of pointless since want I want to do
> is up to me really... If it's not something you would do, well I never
> asked for suggestions on what else I can do mainly because I didn't
> want them.

Sorry, my crystal ball is in the shop, and my computer's psychic interface
has a bug. So, unless you ask the question you really want an answer to, you
will get an answer (or suggestions regarding) to the question you actually
asked.

>
> Thanks for the reply tho.

You're welcome.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:35:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39r98pF65r3r6U1@individual.net...
|
| "Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
| news:3bafcd2d.0503160316.335367bf@posting.google.com...
| > "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
| news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...

|
| The word is "skeptical", not "sceptical", and I don't care what you
think
| you know. All I said was _my_ card reader is not as fast, not _all_
card
| readers...
|


The language is English, the spelling is sceptical. If you are American
you lost the spelling of the word as you crossed the Atlantic Ocean and
changed the spelling of it (and other words) probably because of lack
of education, wanting to be different, or whatever reason you want to
use.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:35:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

alan smith wrote:
> "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:39r98pF65r3r6U1@individual.net...
> |
> | "Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
> | news:3bafcd2d.0503160316.335367bf@posting.google.com...
> | > "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
> | news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...
>
> |
> | The word is "skeptical", not "sceptical", and I don't care what you
> think
> | you know. All I said was _my_ card reader is not as fast, not _all_
> card
> | readers...
> |
>
>
> The language is English, the spelling is sceptical. If you are American
> you lost the spelling of the word as you crossed the Atlantic Ocean and
> changed the spelling of it (and other words) probably because of lack
> of education, wanting to be different, or whatever reason you want to
> use.

Actually, no, the correct spelling is "skeptical", from Gk σκεπτικá½¹ς.
It's not America's fault if the English feel so inferior to the French
that they have to Frenchify their spellings.

---
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index...
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:35:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:08:46 -0500, "John W. Kennedy"
<jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:

>alan smith wrote:
>> "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:39r98pF65r3r6U1@individual.net...
>> |
>> | "Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
>> | news:3bafcd2d.0503160316.335367bf@posting.google.com...
>> | > "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
>> | news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...
>>
>> |
>> | The word is "skeptical", not "sceptical", and I don't care what you
>> think
>> | you know. All I said was _my_ card reader is not as fast, not _all_
>> card
>> | readers...
>> |
>>
>>
>> The language is English, the spelling is sceptical. If you are American
>> you lost the spelling of the word as you crossed the Atlantic Ocean and
>> changed the spelling of it (and other words) probably because of lack
>> of education, wanting to be different, or whatever reason you want to
>> use.
>
>Actually, no, the correct spelling is "skeptical", from Gk ?????????.
>It's not America's fault if the English feel so inferior to the French
>that they have to Frenchify their spellings.

Actually, most dictionaries (including M-W.com) see sceptical as a
variant of skeptical. So sceptical is OK.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sc...
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 6:44:37 AM

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

I've got 5 devices that all use SD memory cards. Here's my experience
with a variety of these devices:

Palm T/E: Medium speed and convenient to use, but card reader program
caused crashes.

Old generic card reader: Fast speed, very convenient, but does not work
with 1GB card.

Digital Camera: Fast speed for downloading pictures to PC but software
does not allow uploads/file management.

Digital Cam-corder: Fast speed but very inconvenient because it
requires the power cord for communication with the PC.

Printer with built in card reader: Slow speed but very convenient
because it's right there on my desk at all times and when I put a card
in, it shows up like a regular drive.

The result is that I use the Printer almost all the time and wait a few
more seconds for the file transfer or I just do something else if I'm
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:01:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Bear in mind
> I never said I live in the US and I could be earning $1 a day so
> $15-$20 may very well be an issue.

I assume that you can access the internet and you do have a digital camera
that you are not living on the street, if it is an issue you won't be buying
one anyway ya dickhead.
March 17, 2005 11:59:05 AM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:08:46 -0500, John W. Kennedy wrote:

> It's not America's fault if the English feel so inferior to the French
> that they have to Frenchify their spellings.

How Gaulling. You should have said "Freedomify their spellings".
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:18:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:01:16 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

> Bear in mind
>> I never said I live in the US and I could be earning $1 a day so
>> $15-$20 may very well be an issue.
>
>I assume that you can access the internet and you do have a digital camera
>that you are not living on the street, if it is an issue you won't be buying
>one anyway ya dickhead.

THIS TROLL IS NOW CLOSED ;-)

Cheers - Neil
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:<0X9_d.1175$C7.850@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> Bear in mind
> > I never said I live in the US and I could be earning $1 a day so
> > $15-$20 may very well be an issue.
>
> I assume that you can access the internet and you do have a digital camera
> that you are not living on the street, if it is an issue you won't be buying
> one anyway ya dickhead.

Well I did never say I had a digital camera. Maybe I want a card
reader for my cyber cafe I am setting up for which I took out a 200%
interest loan. Whatever the case, the fact remains, buying a new card
reader when there is nothing wrong with my card reader is just plain
stupid whereever I live, except in aussie I suppose since you do tend
to waste money on stuff
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:20:31 AM

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

Misterjj <noway@idts.com> wrote in message news:<Xns961BC8DCCF8D0nowayidtscom@68.12.19.6>...
> I've got 5 devices that all use SD memory cards. Here's my experience
> with a variety of these devices:
>
> Palm T/E: Medium speed and convenient to use, but card reader program
> caused crashes.
>
> Old generic card reader: Fast speed, very convenient, but does not work
> with 1GB card.
>
> Digital Camera: Fast speed for downloading pictures to PC but software
> does not allow uploads/file management.
>
> Digital Cam-corder: Fast speed but very inconvenient because it
> requires the power cord for communication with the PC.
>
> Printer with built in card reader: Slow speed but very convenient
> because it's right there on my desk at all times and when I put a card
> in, it shows up like a regular drive.

Thanks a lot!!! One of the few examples of a helpful reply!
>
> The result is that I use the Printer almost all the time and wait a few
> more seconds for the file transfer or I just do something else if I'm
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:13:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot,microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:q0rh31toleul3orrtimfau615gghv9i6th@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:08:46 -0500, "John W. Kennedy"
| <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
|
| >alan smith wrote:
| >> "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
| >> news:39r98pF65r3r6U1@individual.net...
| >> |
| >> | "Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
| >> | news:3bafcd2d.0503160316.335367bf@posting.google.com...
| >> | > "Alan" <alan@erols.com> wrote in message
| >> | news:<39oc01F61710sU1@individual.net>...
| >>
| >> |
| >> | The word is "skeptical", not "sceptical", and I don't care what
you
| >> think
| >> | you know. All I said was _my_ card reader is not as fast, not
_all_
| >> card
| >> | readers...
| >> |
| >>
| >>
| >> The language is English, the spelling is sceptical. If you are
American
| >> you lost the spelling of the word as you crossed the Atlantic
Ocean and
| >> changed the spelling of it (and other words) probably because of
lack
| >> of education, wanting to be different, or whatever reason you want
to
| >> use.
| >
| >Actually, no, the correct spelling is "skeptical", from Gk
?????????.
| >It's not America's fault if the English feel so inferior to the
French
| >that they have to Frenchify their spellings.
|
| Actually, most dictionaries (including M-W.com) see sceptical as a
| variant of skeptical. So sceptical is OK.
|
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sc...
| --
| Bill Funk


My (not American) English dictionary does this the other way round-
skeptical is the option and it has esp. American as a note.
!