Wat would you want to know, Mark?
Ihave one of those CF-IDE adapter so please ask your questions, I
will do my best to help you.
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Ryan Brooks wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Matt Kelch wrote:
Doesn't CF use a modified IDE interface? That might be a large
part of why its still around.
I'm not sure about CF using or being a modified IDE.
It is. In fact, there are even passive
I did boot my PC with a CF card.
The thing is NOT to let it swap on the CF otherwise, it will quickly
go away. Otherwise it is VERY fast. I booted a small Linuw distro on a
32MB CF. The same OS on an IDE drive was quite a bit smaller.
2006/9/12, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Sep 11,
I did boot my PC with a CF card.
The thing is NOT to let it swap on the CF otherwise, it will quickly
go away. Otherwise it is VERY fast. I booted a small Linuw distro on a
32MB CF. The same OS on an IDE drive was quite a bit smaller.
I meant The same OS on an IDE drive was quite a bit FASTER
On 12/09/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And apart from some pictures, what has that to do with the viability of
CF? These devices will work just fine in SD cards too.
Sure but the point is whatever the current density of chips the CF
card will physically hold about 4x more than SD.
--
and is ok to go up to 137GB ...
2006/9/12, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 12/09/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And apart from some pictures, what has that to do with the viability of
CF? These devices will work just fine in SD cards too.
Sure but the point is whatever
On 12.09.2006, at 14:16 , Digital Image Studio wrote:
Sure but the point is whatever the current density of chips the CF
card will physically hold about 4x more than SD.
So what? You said you wouldn't use 8GB card because of risk of losing
too many photos at once, and this capacity is already
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 8:35 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT Why CF is still viable storage media
On 12.09.2006, at 14:16 , Digital Image Studio wrote:
Sure but the point is whatever the current density of chips the CF
card will physically hold about 4x more than SD.
So
On 12/09/06, Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what? You said you wouldn't use 8GB card because of risk of losing
too many photos at once, and this capacity is already available in SD
form ;-)
Oh no that wasn't me, I gave up my 4GB microdrive because I don't
trust drives, solid
On 12/09/06, Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wasn't there a thread sometime ago about a device that enables a
SD card to be used in a device designed for CF? If so, could someone post a
link to where one may be available.
Yes there are but they slow down the fastest SD cards considerably,
Thanks Rob,
I think I'll stick with the 1 gb CF card and 4 gb microdrive.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Digital Image Studio
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:07 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT Why CF is still
On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:58 PM, John Francis wrote:
Doesn't CF use a modified IDE interface? That might be a large
part of why its still around.
I'm not sure about CF using or being a modified IDE.
It is. In fact, there are even passive adapters for CF-IDE
(being the
40-pin sort found
I don't recall anyone saying that CF cards were no longer viable storage
devices, only that SD cards were replacing them in many cameras and were
becoming the more common - dare I say, standard - card. Were I to be
desirous of using a larger camera - like a 645 or a huge Nikon or Canon, CF
would
On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 12/09/06, Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wasn't there a thread sometime ago about a device that enables a
SD card to be used in a device designed for CF? If so, could
someone post a
link to where one may be available.
Yes
On 12/09/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't recall anyone saying that CF cards were no longer viable storage
devices, only that SD cards were replacing them in many cameras and were
becoming the more common - dare I say, standard - card. Were I to be
desirous of using a
On 12/09/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similar or the same device is available from www.mittoni.com and
www.psism.com as well.
The device seems to have a maximum throughput rate equal to that of a
32x card.
Likely, mine is the Mittoni one.
--
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE
indeed.I have a CF - IDE adapter which is passive.
2006/9/12, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:58 PM, John Francis wrote:
Doesn't CF use a modified IDE interface? That might be a large
part of why its still around.
I'm not sure about CF using or being a
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Interesting. Is it not also true that the CF to PC card adapters are
basically passive adaption? The PCMCIA specification is very adaptable.
Yes, it is not true. PCMCIA is more like ISA, so an adapter would have
electronics.
--
PDML
On Sep 12, 2006, at 8:55 AM, ryan brooks wrote:
Interesting. Is it not also true that the CF to PC card adapters are
basically passive adaption? The PCMCIA specification is very
adaptable.
Yes, it is not true. PCMCIA is more like ISA, so an adapter would
have
electronics.
Yes, it
Digital Image Studio wrote:
http://www.digitimes.com/Backgrounders/ArtReview.asp?datePublish=2006/09/11pages=PRseq=204Cat=1
http://tinyurl.com/puph6
From a dpreview post
And apart from some pictures, what has that to do with the viability of
CF? These devices will work just fine in SD
At 10:18 AM 12/09/2006, Adam Maas wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
http://www.digitimes.com/Backgrounders/ArtReview.asp?datePublish=2006/09/11pages=PRseq=204Cat=1
http://tinyurl.com/puph6
From a dpreview post
And apart from some pictures, what has that to do with the viability of
David Savage wrote:
At 10:18 AM 12/09/2006, Adam Maas wrote:
Digital Image Studio wrote:
http://www.digitimes.com/Backgrounders/ArtReview.asp?datePublish=2006/09/11pages=PRseq=204Cat=1
http://tinyurl.com/puph6
From a dpreview post
And apart from some pictures, what
On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Matt Kelch wrote:
Doesn't CF use a modified IDE interface? That might be a large
part of
why its still around.
I'm not sure about CF using or being a modified IDE. It stands for
Integrated Drive Electronics and is a standard dreamt up to
integrate drive
Impressive.
I never heard anyone say that CF wasn't a viable storage medium. It's
just fallen back in use compared to SD and other, smaller card
formats in recent times. Most new developments in flash memory
devices start in CF form factor because it's large and easier to
design for.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Matt Kelch wrote:
Doesn't CF use a modified IDE interface? That might be a large
part of
why its still around.
I'm not sure about CF using or being a modified IDE.
It is. In fact, there are even passive adapters for CF-IDE
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:02:23PM -0500, Ryan Brooks wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Matt Kelch wrote:
Doesn't CF use a modified IDE interface? That might be a large
part of
why its still around.
I'm not sure about CF using or being a
26 matches
Mail list logo
