Subj : back in business
To   : BJ”RN FORSSTR”M
From : JAY EMRIE
Date : Mon Jan 03 2005 10:35 am

BF> JE> All the USB 2.0 devices (printers, scanner, CF, SD, cards) I have work
BF> JE> just fine on a USB 1 port - just slower than if on a USB 2.0 port.
BF> JE> However, I can't really tell the difference in speed. just the warning
BF> JE> message "this device would work better (faster) if on a USB 2.0 port".

BF>There is a difference in speed but not that much when only using a printer
BF>or scanner. When transfering bigger files it goes twice as fast (at least) 
but
BF>the difference is only a matter of seconds.
BF>I did see a difference however with my Canon EOS 300 D digital camera when
BF>changing from a "normal" CF card to a Ultra II. Both in the camera and in 
the
BF>transferring of the files from the card to the computer via a card-reader
BF>connected to a USB 2.0 port. It's much faster now and is not compareable
BF>with my pocket-camera:s SD card and then the files from the Canon are about
BF>twice as big as from the Minolta DiMage X20.

The increase in speed with the Ultra II is one reason why I prefer Lexar
CF cards. The speed of Lexar cards is marked on them - no guessing.
One has to do a bit of detective work to find out the speed of other
maker's cards.

Slower speeds aren't much of a problem when transferring from the cards
to a PC, but are very much of a problem when taking pictures. Slower
recording speeds will slow down the camera's ability to take multiple
shots in a short period of time - say in action photos.

Further note: The cheaper the price, the slower the card. Ads extolling
cards at very low prices almost always mean slow cards.

Jay

---
 ž OLXWin 1.00a ž One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor....
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

.