Yugo wrote:
> Which of those USB drives would you go for for use with Linux, if it
> really matters:
>

Either should be fine. I think Kingston is a better brand but that is
only my opinion...

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:48:51 -0500, Yugo wrote:

> Which of those USB drives would you go for for use with Linux, if it
> really matters:
>
>
> USB2 CORSAIR 4096MB FLASH DRIVE $69.00 (CAN)
>
>
> Storage Capacity 4 GB
> Compatibility Non-specific
> Interface Type Hi-Speed USB
> Features Waterproof
> Expansion / Connectivity
> Interfaces 1 x USB - 4 pin USB Type A
> Miscellaneous
> Included Accessories USB cable, lanyard
> Compliant Standards Plug and Play
> Software / System Requirements
> Software Included Drivers & Utilities
> OS Required Apple MacOS X / MacOS 9, Linux 2.4 or later, Microsoft
> Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
> Service & Support 10 years warranty
>
>
> DRIVE USB2 KINGSTON 4096MB DT $59.00 (CAN)
>
>
> Storage Capacity 4 GB
> Compatibility Non-specific
> Interface Type Hi-Speed USB
> Expansion / Connectivity
> Interfaces 1 x Hi-Speed USB - 4 pin USB Type A
> Software / System Requirements
> OS Required Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP SP1 or later,
> Apple MacOS X 10.x or later, Microsoft Windows Vista
> Service & Support 5 years warranty
> Service & Support Details Limited warranty - 5 years

So what's the problem - $10 is $10.

Yugo wrote:

> Which of those USB drives would you go for for use with Linux, if it
> really matters:
>
>
> USB2 CORSAIR 4096MB FLASH DRIVE $69.00 (CAN)

> Features Waterproof

> OS Required Apple MacOS X / MacOS 9, Linux 2.4 or later, Microsoft
> Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
> Service & Support 10 years warranty
>
>
> DRIVE USB2 KINGSTON 4096MB DT $59.00 (CAN)

> OS Required Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP SP1 or later,
> Apple MacOS X 10.x or later, Microsoft Windows Vista
> Service & Support 5 years warranty

I don't think that it matters, but you may want to find out which USB-
flash interface chip each one uses. I suspect that the Corsair uses
an NEC chip because of the support for Windows 98, and NEC USB chips
seem to be among the least troublesome as far as compatibility goes.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:48:51 -0500, Yugo
wrote:

>Which of those USB drives would you go for for use with Linux, if it
>really matters:
>
>
>USB2 CORSAIR 4096MB FLASH DRIVE $69.00 (CAN)
>
>
>Storage Capacity 4 GB
>Compatibility Non-specific
>Interface Type Hi-Speed USB
>Features Waterproof
>Expansion / Connectivity
>Interfaces 1 x USB - 4 pin USB Type A
>Miscellaneous
>Included Accessories USB cable, lanyard
>Compliant Standards Plug and Play
>Software / System Requirements
>Software Included Drivers & Utilities
>OS Required Apple MacOS X / MacOS 9, Linux 2.4 or later, Microsoft
>Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
>Service & Support 10 years warranty
>
>
>DRIVE USB2 KINGSTON 4096MB DT $59.00 (CAN)
>
>
>Storage Capacity 4 GB
>Compatibility Non-specific
>Interface Type Hi-Speed USB
>Expansion / Connectivity
>Interfaces 1 x Hi-Speed USB - 4 pin USB Type A
>Software / System Requirements
>OS Required Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP SP1 or later,
>Apple MacOS X 10.x or later, Microsoft Windows Vista
>Service & Support 5 years warranty
>Service & Support Details Limited warranty - 5 years

You left out the most important detail - the rated read and
write speeds. If the manufacturers don't even list the read
and write speeds, assume they are incredibly slow compared
to most modern USB drives, and that you should find another
alternative that has a good write speed (since write speed
is a larger variable, some may have similar read speeds but
writing may be a larger difference among different drives).

For a 4GB drive, those prices look high but I realize that's
Canadian $, what does it translate into in USD?

If the exchange rate is around 1.55:1, in the US we can get
a 4GB drive with 15MB/s write for about $34 after rebate
which is about $40 CAN?.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227145

I would use that as a reference point, plus with a drive
that large it would take quite a long time to utilize all
that space if the write and read speeds aren't fairly high.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:58:56 -0400, kony
wrote:


>If the exchange rate is around 1.55:1, in the US we can get
>a 4GB drive with 15MB/s write for about $34 after rebate
>which is about $40 CAN?.

Edit: meant exchange rate of 1.15:1

kony wrote:

> You left out the most important detail - the rated read and
> write speeds.

Aren't they standard for USB2 ?

> If the exchange rate is around 1.55:1, in the US we can get
> a 4GB drive with 15MB/s write for about $34 after rebate
> which is about $40 CAN?.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227145

It's not Corsair or Kingston, tough.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> Yugo wrote:
>
>
>>Which of those USB drives would you go for for use with Linux, if it
>>really matters:
>>
>>
>>USB2 CORSAIR 4096MB FLASH DRIVE $69.00 (CAN)
>
>
>>Features Waterproof
>
>
>>OS Required Apple MacOS X / MacOS 9, Linux 2.4 or later, Microsoft
>>Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
>>Service & Support 10 years warranty
>>
>>
>>DRIVE USB2 KINGSTON 4096MB DT $59.00 (CAN)
>
>
>>OS Required Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows XP SP1 or later,
>>Apple MacOS X 10.x or later, Microsoft Windows Vista
>>Service & Support 5 years warranty
>
>
> I don't think that it matters, but you may want to find out which USB-
> flash interface chip each one uses. I suspect that the Corsair uses
> an NEC chip because of the support for Windows 98, and NEC USB chips
> seem to be among the least troublesome as far as compatibility goes.

To tell the truth, I'm not very interested in Win98 compatibility. I'd
rather keep $10 in my pocket.

Yugo writes:

> kony wrote:
>
>> You left out the most important detail - the rated read and write
>> speeds.
>
> Aren't they standard for USB2 ?

You're thinking of the interface speed. The read/write speed of the
actual chips can be much lower.

Another thing to look at is the actual capacities of the units. The
real storage capacity is usually 10-15% under the labeled amount, even
if 1k=1000.

--
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com

Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Yugo writes:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You left out the most important detail - the rated read and write
>>>speeds.
>>
>>Aren't they standard for USB2 ?
>
>
> You're thinking of the interface speed. The read/write speed of the
> actual chips can be much lower.

Oopsie, daisy, I didn't knwo that. I'll check. What is considered a
good R/W spped ?

> Another thing to look at is the actual capacities of the units. The
> real storage capacity is usually 10-15% under the labeled amount, even
> if 1k=1000.

1k=1000 bytes seems pretty standard... for disks now, but how is the
additional 10-15% justified?

Yugo writes:
>Oopsie, daisy, I didn't knwo that. I'll check. What is considered a
>good R/W spped ?

Beyond 25MB/s.

Followups set to comp.os.linux.hardware.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

Anton Ertl wrote:
> Yugo writes:
>
>>Oopsie, daisy, I didn't knwo that. I'll check. What is considered a
>>good R/W spped ?
>
>
> Beyond 25MB/s.

> - anton

According to this:

USB supports three data rates:

* A Low Speed rate of up to 1.5 Mbit/s (187.5 kB/s) that is
mostly used for Human Interface Devices (HID) such as keyboards, mice,
and joysticks.
* A Full Speed rate of up to 12 Mbit/s (1.5 MB/s). Full Speed was
the fastest rate before the USB 2.0 specification and many devices
fall back to Full Speed. Full Speed devices divide the USB bandwidth
between them in a first-come first-served basis and it is not uncommon
to run out of bandwidth with several isochronous devices. All USB Hubs
support Full Speed.
* A Hi-Speed rate of up to 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s).

Hubs, even Hi-Speed hubs, serving a number of non-hi-speed devices,
are likely to divide up a total bandwidth of 12 Mbit/s for such
devices, which will slow them down unless the hub has transaction
translator for each port. [3]

Though Hi-Speed devices are commonly referred to as "USB 2.0" and
advertised as "up to 480 Mbit/s", not all USB 2.0 devices are
Hi-Speed. Hi-speed devices typically only operate at half of the full
theoretical (60 MB/s) data throughput rate. The maximum rate currently
(2006) attained with real devices is about half, 30 MB/s.[4] Most
hi-speed USB devices typically operate at much slower speeds, often
about 3 MB/s overall, sometimes up to 10-20 MB/s. The USB-IF certifies
devices and provides licenses to use special marketing logos for
either "Basic-Speed" (low and full) or Hi-Speed after passing a
compliancy test and paying a licensing fee. All devices are tested
according to the latest spec, so recently-compliant Low Speed devices
are also 2.0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB

So, yes, above 25 MB/s should be pretty good. I suppose I'll have to
pay a visit to Tom's hardware to learn more.

Followups set to originals

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:13:16 -0500, Yugo
wrote:

>Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Yugo writes:
>>
>>
>>>kony wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You left out the most important detail - the rated read and write
>>>>speeds.
>>>
>>>Aren't they standard for USB2 ?
>>
>>
>> You're thinking of the interface speed. The read/write speed of the
>> actual chips can be much lower.
>
>Oopsie, daisy, I didn't knwo that. I'll check. What is considered a
>good R/W spped ?
>
>> Another thing to look at is the actual capacities of the units. The
>> real storage capacity is usually 10-15% under the labeled amount, even
>> if 1k=1000.
>
>1k=1000 bytes seems pretty standard... for disks now, but how is the
>additional 10-15% justified?


No, 1K is never standard. When it's kiloBYTES, it is a
binary system and data is stored on it in this system so 1K
is 1024. Capacity is a descriptor of (in this context) a
data storage device. The capacity represented must
necessarily be equal to that in it's sole use- to store the
data. There is no OS that stores 1K as 1000 bytes.

A good read/write speed depends on the price, the fastest
drives cost the most of course. For a 4GB drive I would not
get anything under the 15MB/s write speed I mentioned
previously. Ignore read speed, it is always faster and not
as much of a variable as write speed... unless you had a
particular use where you only write very few times but are
continually reading that data, in which case you might
justify the cost savings.

Often they will be rated for (n)X speed, like 60X, 133X,
150X. n = 150K/s read speed. This tends to be a primary
part of the product description, but as mentioned above you
would want to read the fine print as to what write speeds
they spec, and more often than not, if no write speed is
listed you might be getting one of the slowest write speeds
of any current generation model.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:03:41 -0500, Yugo
wrote:

>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Yugo writes:
>>
>>>Oopsie, daisy, I didn't knwo that. I'll check. What is considered a
>>>good R/W spped ?
>>
>>
>> Beyond 25MB/s.
>
>> - anton
>
>According to this:
>
>USB supports three data rates:
>
> * A Low Speed rate of up to 1.5 Mbit/s (187.5 kB/s) that is
>mostly used for Human Interface Devices (HID) such as keyboards, mice,
>and joysticks.
> * A Full Speed rate of up to 12 Mbit/s (1.5 MB/s). Full Speed was
>the fastest rate before the USB 2.0 specification and many devices
>fall back to Full Speed. Full Speed devices divide the USB bandwidth
>between them in a first-come first-served basis and it is not uncommon
>to run out of bandwidth with several isochronous devices. All USB Hubs
>support Full Speed.
> * A Hi-Speed rate of up to 480 Mbit/s (60 MB/s).

Forget about these, assuming you are buying a modern product
it will be USB hi-speed. We are not talking about the USB
speed, we are talking about the product read and write
speed. Different products using the same Hi-Speed USB2
interface can and often do vary quite a lot in their actual
performance in writing (mostly) and reading (to a lesser
extent, when talking about 4GB sizes).



>
>Hubs, even Hi-Speed hubs, serving a number of non-hi-speed devices,
>are likely to divide up a total bandwidth of 12 Mbit/s for such
>devices, which will slow them down unless the hub has transaction
>translator for each port. [3]


Ignore this too, we are talking about what the product
manufacturer specs as the READ and WRITE speed. Nothing
else/other/different/not-usb.



>
>Though Hi-Speed devices are commonly referred to as "USB 2.0" and
>advertised as "up to 480 Mbit/s", not all USB 2.0 devices are
>Hi-Speed. Hi-speed devices typically only operate at half of the full
>theoretical (60 MB/s) data throughput rate. The maximum rate currently
>(2006) attained with real devices is about half, 30 MB/s.[4] Most
>hi-speed USB devices typically operate at much slower speeds, often
>about 3 MB/s overall, sometimes up to 10-20 MB/s. The USB-IF certifies
>devices and provides licenses to use special marketing logos for
>either "Basic-Speed" (low and full) or Hi-Speed after passing a
>compliancy test and paying a licensing fee. All devices are tested
>according to the latest spec, so recently-compliant Low Speed devices
>are also 2.0.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB
>
>So, yes, above 25 MB/s should be pretty good. I suppose I'll have to
>pay a visit to Tom's hardware to learn more.
>
>Followups set to originals

It is unrealistic to expect 25MB/s write speed from most,
and even those spec'ing it, will tend to have a real-world
figure lower than this. It might read at 25MB/s though.

kony wrote:

> Ignore this too, we are talking about what the product
> manufacturer specs as the READ and WRITE speed.

Very interesting, Kony. It would be nice of you if you could provide
"specs as the READ and WRITE speed" of any USB2 key on either Corsair
or Kingston sites.

Thanks again!

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:32:36 -0500, Yugo
wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> Ignore this too, we are talking about what the product
>> manufacturer specs as the READ and WRITE speed.
>
>Very interesting, Kony. It would be nice of you if you could provide
>"specs as the READ and WRITE speed" of any USB2 key on either Corsair
>or Kingston sites.
>
>Thanks again!


The answer is no, because you are equally capable of going
to their website and seeking a read and write speed.
"read", "write", not "USB". It's just that simple.

Go to their website and check. As I'd already mentioned,
when a manufacturer fails to mention any speed it is because
it is not fast enough to be rated, it is their lowest speed
product, slower than everything else modern.

Yugo wrote:

> larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> > I don't think that it matters, but you may want to find out which USB-
> > flash interface chip each one uses. I suspect that the Corsair uses
> > an NEC chip because of the support for Windows 98, and NEC USB chips
> > seem to be among the least troublesome as far as compatibility goes.
>
> To tell the truth, I'm not very interested in Win98 compatibility. I'd
> rather keep $10 in my pocket.

I was referring to Windows _2098_ compatibility.

I mentioned Win98 only because it's a way of identifying which USB
chip is used, and some chip brands have more compatibility problems
than others do -- see www.usbman.com, www.everythingusb.com, and
www.fatwallet.com/t/28/496281 (latter applies to hard drive
enclosures, but it shows how bad some USB chips are).

kony wrote:

>> It would be nice of you if you could provide
>>"specs as the READ and WRITE speed" of any USB2 key on either Corsair
>>or Kingston sites.

> The answer is no, because you are equally capable of going
> to their website and seeking a read and write speed.
> "read", "write", not "USB". It's just that simple.

Providing the links wouldn't have taken 1/10 of the time who took to
write your silly messages. Trolling on newsgroups is pretty simple too!

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:49:14 -0500, Yugo
wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>> It would be nice of you if you could provide
>>>"specs as the READ and WRITE speed" of any USB2 key on either Corsair
>>>or Kingston sites.
>
>> The answer is no, because you are equally capable of going
>> to their website and seeking a read and write speed.
>> "read", "write", not "USB". It's just that simple.
>
>Providing the links wouldn't have taken 1/10 of the time who took to
>write your silly messages. Trolling on newsgroups is pretty simple too!


You have worn out your welcome.