Compact Flash, IBM Microdrive, Compaq Ipaq, Casio QV2000...

[gopunk]

ok, so i have a casio digital camera and a compaq ipaq. the digital camera came with an ibm microdrive. my question is basically how to optimize performance... would using the microdrive in the ipaq be slower than using compact flash? i'd be using lexar 12x, if i did that. would the digital camera save pictures faster using the compact flash than the microdrive?

thanks...

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

i hope this gets locked :|

 

[gopunk]

<< i hope this gets locked :| >>


wtf?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<<

<< i hope this gets locked :| >>


wtf? >>


hahahahh just jokin!!! that was my mysterious action for the night

 

[Joony]

Hmm, i would just use the microdrive with the ipaq (remember that there will be a startup delay when you access the files and the battery will drain alot faster) cause of the extra space (if its the 1 gig one, i would use with ipaq, anything lower i would use the lexar 12x with the ipaq)

 

[cavingjan]

the regular cf would be faster and would probably use less power. The lexar CF is not one to consider in certain pdas (dependant upon how the cf is located bus-wise; visor with a memplug or other cf adapter sits directly on the bus and lexar is known for waking up everytime it sees any activity on its bus thus never going to sleep even when the pda is off). Anybody have any issues with the PocketPCs and Lexar CF draining the batteries faster? (I know very little about the actual hardware in a pocketpc.)
However, just remember that the microdrive is not solid state and could get jostled around more in the pda than the camera.

 

[gopunk]

okay, so it sounds like i should use the microdrive with camera and cf with ipaq then, since the microdrive is 340 mb, not 1 gb.

do you have any links on the bus issue? i can't find anything on it...

 

[MrBond]

<<

<< i hope this gets locked :| >>


wtf? >>

There's a forum for these type of questions. General Hardware is here

 

[gopunk]

<<

<<

<< i hope this gets locked :| >>


wtf? >>

There's a forum for these type of questions. General Hardware is here >>



i don't consider ipaqs and digital cameras to be computer hardware... and i don't think that was the intent of whoever created that forum.

 

[brxndxn]

gopunk, so you don't consider his question off-topic enough? I mean.. how the hell can it be off-topic for off-topic? What are the allowed topics for off-topic - the off-topic criteria? Your post is off-topic to this thread.


Just so that I am not off-topic for this off-topic Off-Topic thread, I suggest using the IBM microdrive in the digital camera that it came with.

 

[gopunk]

gopunk, so you don't consider his question off-topic enough? I mean.. how the hell can it be off-topic for off-topic? What are the allowed topics for off-topic - the off-topic criteria? Your post is off-topic to this thread.

i think you are addressing MrBond, as i was the one who asked this question in the first place...

Just so that I am not off-topic for this off-topic Off-Topic thread, I suggest using the IBM microdrive in the digital camera that it came with.

okay that's what i'll probably do. i'm going to replace that digicam soon... canon pro90is, come to papa..... okay soon being a few months i guess.

 

[gopunk]

for anybody that's interested, i've decided to stick the compact flash in the digicam and the microdrive (340) in the ipaq.

read/write times are approximately equal for both in the ipaq
in the casio qv2000 camera, it takes 9-11 blinks to save a 800 k image on the microdrive, whereas it only takes 3-4 for the cf.

my suspicion is that the camera, like a lot of other digicams isn't maximizing the speed of the microdrive, or else they would be about equal.

 

[stonecold3169]

something else to consider is that because the microdrive isn't solid state, if you're doing stuff like watching DivX your battery life is going to go down the toilet

 

[worth]

The time required to save images on a Microdrive, when using a Casio QVxxxx camera is really annoying...

 

[fr]

lalalala

Lots of iPAQ discussion recently