Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #5708 > unrolled thread

Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive)

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Ignoramus22200 <ignoramus22200@NOSPAM.22200.invalid> - 2012-07-21 20:40 -0500
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-07-22 02:07 +0000
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-07-22 00:37 -0400
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Ignoramus2844 <ignoramus2844@NOSPAM.2844.invalid> - 2012-07-22 08:51 -0500
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-22 19:33 +0200
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-23 14:38 +0000
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-23 14:36 +0000
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> - 2012-07-22 06:35 -0400
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-22 05:17 -0700
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Ignoramus2844 <ignoramus2844@NOSPAM.2844.invalid> - 2012-07-22 08:53 -0500
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-07-22 21:26 +0200
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Roy Strachan-12 <rdstrac@shaw.ca> - 2012-07-23 15:32 +0000
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) TheGlimmerMan <justaglimmer@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> - 2012-07-22 04:37 -0700
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2012-07-23 11:03 -0700
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-07-23 20:28 +0000
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-23 23:40 +0100
          Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Christoph Schmees <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> - 2012-07-24 13:01 +0200
            Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 05:45 -0700
              Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-07-24 09:34 -0400
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 18:13 -0400
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 17:55 -0700
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 07:40 +0100
                    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-25 01:21 -0700
                      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 10:20 +0100
                        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-25 05:05 -0700
                        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-07-25 07:24 -0500
                          Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 18:37 +0100
              Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:20 +0100
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Vic RR Garcia <VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> - 2012-07-24 20:45 -0400
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 18:08 -0700
                Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-24 18:00 -0700
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 07:43 +0100
                    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> - 2012-07-25 01:34 -0700
                  Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2012-07-25 18:24 +0000
            Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-07-25 15:14 +0000
              Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-25 18:38 +0100
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-07-24 12:53 +0000
      Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-07-24 16:20 +0100
        Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-07-24 15:31 +0000
          Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-07-24 12:27 -0400
    Re: Wear leveling for the poor? (FAT filesystem on Flash drive) "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> - 2012-07-31 09:47 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#5739

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:34:10 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, MrTallyman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
>> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>>> drives
>>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>>
>>>> Or even on the camera
>>>>
>>>
>>> *better* on the camera!
>>>
>>> Christoph
>>
>>  I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>>
>> There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
>> the job.
>>
>And yet, in the digital photography newsgroup, many seem to swear that 
>formattig in the camera is the only way to go. I don't know whether it's 
>folk myth or some reality, but they sure believe it.
>
>    Michael

  There is no hardware in the world that performs a FAT format on a flash
stick differently than any other.  Some sticks even "take over".
Definitely myth.

  Just like little black patches under the eyes is a tribal,war paint
thing, not a "glare reducer" as all the stupid jocks would try to have
someone believe. If cheek glare was a problem in sports, it would be
known about worldwide.  It isn't.  It is fucking war paint.

  And, there is no need to check it like with floppies.  If there was a
failure, it would get caught on the write/format event.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5742

MrTallyman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:34:10 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, MrTallyman wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
>>> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>>>> drives
>>>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>>> Or even on the camera
>>>>>
>>>> *better* on the camera!
>>>>
>>>> Christoph
>>>  I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
>>> the job.
>>>
>> And yet, in the digital photography newsgroup, many seem to swear that 
>> formattig in the camera is the only way to go. I don't know whether it's 
>> folk myth or some reality, but they sure believe it.
>>
>>    Michael
> 
>   There is no hardware in the world that performs a FAT format on a flash
> stick differently than any other.  Some sticks even "take over".
> Definitely myth.

Ok them what the camera means by 'format' is 'format and install  a 
custom special system of files'

Its obvious you have never seen or used e.g. a Nikon DSLR.


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5744

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:40:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>MrTallyman wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:34:10 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, MrTallyman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
>>>> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>>>>> drives
>>>>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>>>> Or even on the camera
>>>>>>
>>>>> *better* on the camera!
>>>>>
>>>>> Christoph
>>>>  I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
>>>> the job.
>>>>
>>> And yet, in the digital photography newsgroup, many seem to swear that 
>>> formattig in the camera is the only way to go. I don't know whether it's 
>>> folk myth or some reality, but they sure believe it.
>>>
>>>    Michael
>> 
>>   There is no hardware in the world that performs a FAT format on a flash
>> stick differently than any other.  Some sticks even "take over".
>> Definitely myth.
>
>Ok

 No, your FUD is NOT "OK".

> them what the camera means by 'format' is 'format and install  a 
>custom special system of files'

  A FAT format IS the FILE SYSTEM on the thing, idiot!

  SO, IF all they do is add directory trees, and that is all they can do,
there is no reason you cannot create the structure yourself.

>Its obvious you have never seen or used e.g. a Nikon DSLR.

  Your powers of deduction are just about as juvenile as your grasp of
file systems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5746

MrTallyman wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:40:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> MrTallyman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:34:10 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, MrTallyman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
>>>>> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>>>>>> drives
>>>>>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>>>>> Or even on the camera
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *better* on the camera!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christoph
>>>>>  I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
>>>>> the job.
>>>>>
>>>> And yet, in the digital photography newsgroup, many seem to swear that 
>>>> formattig in the camera is the only way to go. I don't know whether it's 
>>>> folk myth or some reality, but they sure believe it.
>>>>
>>>>    Michael
>>>   There is no hardware in the world that performs a FAT format on a flash
>>> stick differently than any other.  Some sticks even "take over".
>>> Definitely myth.
>> Ok
> 
>  No, your FUD is NOT "OK".
> 
>> them what the camera means by 'format' is 'format and install  a 
>> custom special system of files'
> 
>   A FAT format IS the FILE SYSTEM on the thing, idiot!
> 
That's why I said 'system of files' and not a FILE SYSTEM, dork,

The camera installs some directories and some special files as well.

You need to take a course in courtesy and remedial english.


>   SO, IF all they do is add directory trees, and that is all they can do,
> there is no reason you cannot create the structure yourself.
> 

Assuming that the file system is indeed 100% compatible with what your 
computer thinks a files system ought to be.

>> Its obvious you have never seen or used e.g. a Nikon DSLR.
> 
>   Your powers of deduction are just about as juvenile as your grasp of
> file systems.

You are so far from the truth its risible.

I have WRITTEN CODE to create file systems


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5747

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:20:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>That's why I said 'system of files' and not a FILE SYSTEM, dork,


 I guess you are simply wholly blind to just how utterly stupid that
crack is, dingledorf.

 Almost just as stupid as a camera maker requiring a format where none is
needed.

 My superior brand certainly doesn't and will create the tree if it isn't
already there without crying, and that is not a format.  It never forces
one, and even asks for confirmation if you attempt one on the camera.

 The PSP will also auto-add the tree without formatting the storage
device.  I'd almost bet that their cameras would accept a new stick with
the proper tree structure without puking. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5748

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:20:14 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> That's why I said 'system of files' and not a FILE SYSTEM, dork,

I see, it's the same thing as saying a glass for holding water instead
of saying a water glass.  It's perfectly clear to me now, thanks.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Nice computers don't go down.
	Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
		"The Barsoom Project"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5750

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:20:14 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> That's why I said 'system of files' and not a FILE SYSTEM, dork,
> 
> I see, it's the same thing as saying a glass for holding water instead
> of saying a water glass.  It's perfectly clear to me now, thanks.
> 

No, its the difference between a water glass and a glass of water.

> Cybe R. Wizard


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5732

MrTallyman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
> 
>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>> drives
>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>> Or even on the camera
>>>
>> *better* on the camera!
>>
>> Christoph
> 
>   I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
> 
>  There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
> the job.

Wont work on my Nikon. It installs a few custom directories as well, 
plus a few odds and ends and anyway, I haven't got  flash card adapter.


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5738

On 07/24/12 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> MrTallyman wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
>> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>>> drives
>>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>> Or even on the camera
>>>>
>>> *better* on the camera!
>>>
>>> Christoph
>>
>>   I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>>
>>  There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
>> the job.
>
> Wont work on my Nikon. It installs a few custom directories as well,
> plus a few odds and ends and anyway, I haven't got  flash card adapter.

That's correct, some cameras refuse to accept any formatting but their 
own, Nikon and Sony are classical examples. At least mines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5741

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:45:56 -0400, Vic RR Garcia
<VicGar007@at-gmail.dot.com> wrote:

>On 07/24/12 11:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> MrTallyman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees
>>> <cjws@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash
>>>>>>>> drives
>>>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>>>> Or even on the camera
>>>>>
>>>> *better* on the camera!
>>>>
>>>> Christoph
>>>
>>>   I do not waste the camera's battery on anything but photos.
>>>
>>>  There are plenty of powered devices out there (computers) that can do
>>> the job.
>>
>> Wont work on my Nikon. It installs a few custom directories as well,
>> plus a few odds and ends and anyway, I haven't got  flash card adapter.
>
>That's correct, some cameras refuse to accept any formatting but their 
>own, Nikon and Sony are classical examples. At least mines.
>
>
>
  A good reason to avoid buying their "equipment".

  I saw one of those $500+ cameras at the store,andwas amazed at just how
utterly fucking CHEAP the flash pop-up was.

  My 14MP Olympus beats the hell out of most of those removable lens
jobs.

  First off, it was only $250.  Secondly, I can focus to within 1cm of
the primary lens face.  Third, it doesn't chew through batteries.  Even
though the battery it has is proprietary, it lasts and charges from the
USB interface.

  Secondly, it was only $250!  Oh...  I already said that. And the pop-up
flash is STURDY!

  I cannot believe folks pay a $200 premium for a camera, then pay huge
amounts for lenses.

  I have a co-worker who has $11k tied up in his now 6 year old gear.  He
hardly has used it yet. I guess he just had to have it.  He also has a
$12k Paradigm speaker system on his stereo set.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5740

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:20:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>Wont work on my Nikon.

  I'll bet it would.

  Maybe it is an IQ thing.

> It installs a few custom directories as well, 

  If you know that, you would know how to reproduce it. Duh. We are back
to the IQ thing.

>plus a few odds and ends

 Horseshit.

> and anyway, I haven't got  flash card adapter.

  Lame overpriced camera wants yet more money for yet another piece of
overpriced crap to make it work!??

  How LAME is that!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5743

MrTallyman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:20:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Wont work on my Nikon.
> 
>   I'll bet it would.
> 
>   Maybe it is an IQ thing.
> 
>> It installs a few custom directories as well, 
> 
>   If you know that, you would know how to reproduce it. Duh. We are back
> to the IQ thing.
> 


>> plus a few odds and ends
> 
>  Horseshit.
> 
>> and anyway, I haven't got  flash card adapter.
> 
>   Lame overpriced camera wants yet more money for yet another piece of
> overpriced crap to make it work!??
> 
>   How LAME is that!?


Ah. I see. 'Lame' Now that tells me everything I need to know about what 
you are and your posting motives.

Cam I take this opportunity to present my condolences and tell you that 
they *all* laugh at you. Women are actually NOT worth the effort, and 
when  you grow up you will understand.


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5745

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:43:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>MrTallyman wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:20:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Wont work on my Nikon.
>> 
>>   I'll bet it would.
>> 
>>   Maybe it is an IQ thing.
>> 
>>> It installs a few custom directories as well, 
>> 
>>   If you know that, you would know how to reproduce it. Duh. We are back
>> to the IQ thing.
>> 
>
>
>>> plus a few odds and ends
>> 
>>  Horseshit.
>> 
>>> and anyway, I haven't got  flash card adapter.
>> 
>>   Lame overpriced camera wants yet more money for yet another piece of
>> overpriced crap to make it work!??
>> 
>>   How LAME is that!?
>
>
>Ah. I see.

  Actually, your assessment capacity has already been shown to be nil
when you declared me as having never seen a Nikon camera.

> 'Lame' Now that tells me everything I need to know about what 
>you are and your posting motives.

  You couldn't assess what another person is about after several tens of
posts, much less one, or some particular therein.
>
>Cam I take this opportunity to present my condolences and tell you that 
>they *all* laugh at you.

  I do not care how many personalities you have, sport.  Or who they
laugh at.

> Women are actually NOT worth the effort,


  Looks like you know nothing about that subject either.

> and when  you grow up you will understand.

  I did more in one week 25 years ago to make the world a better place
than a pathetic dweeb like you will in your entire, pathetic life.

  Did the same thing yesterday in a single day.

  Your contribution is nil.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5752

On 2012-07-25, MrTallyman <MrTallyman@BananaCountersRUs.org> wrote:
>   Lame overpriced camera wants yet more money for yet another piece of
> overpriced crap to make it work!??
>
>   How LAME is that!?

Microsoft is selling cameras now?
-- 
                                 Chick Tower

For e-mail:  colm DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5749

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees wrote:

> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>
>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>
>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>
>> Or even on the camera
>>
>>
> *better* on the camera!
> 
> Christoph

Problem is that the camera only does a 'quick format' which consists of 
only overwriting the directory. A full format is more promising, IMHO. I 
would then 'format' in the camera before shooting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5751

ray wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:01:57 +0200, Christoph Schmees wrote:
> 
>> Am 24.07.2012 00:40, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:03:22 -0700, James Moe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/21/2012 06:40 PM, Ignoramus22200 wrote:
>>>>>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>>>>>> crap out and need to be replaced.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What does "crap out" mean?
>>>>> Have you tried re-formatting the SD card?
>>>> Good point. A complete format on the computer might revive it.
>>> Or even on the camera
>>>
>>>
>> *better* on the camera!
>>
>> Christoph
> 
> Problem is that the camera only does a 'quick format' which consists of 
> only overwriting the directory. A full format is more promising, IMHO. I 
> would then 'format' in the camera before shooting.

You cant say that is true either.

You don't do a 'full format' on a computer either.

Not since the days of floppy disks..
-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5728

In comp.os.linux.misc Ignoramus22200 <ignoramus22200@nospam.22200.invalid> wrote:
> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
> its SDHC drives. 
> 
> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
> about 60 times per day.
> 
> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
> crap out and need to be replaced. 

Hmm. At that freq you are inserting the card more than 5000
times every couple of months-- are you sure that you aren't
just wearing out the edge connector on the card? Modern flash
can do many thousands of cycles , but edge connectors on cheap
cards can't necessarily.

What's the failure symptom? 

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5733

Stan Bischof wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Ignoramus22200 <ignoramus22200@nospam.22200.invalid> wrote:
>> I have a Nikon D80 camera. It uses Fat16 or some such filesystem on
>> its SDHC drives. 
>>
>> I employ a photographer, whose job is to take 5-6 pictures at a time,
>> connect the camera to the PC and download the pictures. He does that
>> about 60 times per day.
>>
>> The problem is that, after every couple of months, the Flash drives
>> crap out and need to be replaced. 
> 
> Hmm. At that freq you are inserting the card more than 5000
> times every couple of months

what in the above makes you think the flash card ever leaves the camera?




-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5734

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Stan Bischof wrote:
>> Hmm. At that freq you are inserting the card more than 5000
>> times every couple of months
> 
> what in the above makes you think the flash card ever leaves the camera?
> 
> 

Actually nothing directly but I for one would never take a nice camera
and reconnect a USB cord thousands of times per month. I have D80 also
and when downloads are needed I remove the card.

But you are right- the OP's note implies that he is hooking up
the USB to the camera.

In which case I agree with the suggestions to fill the card
before deleting anything. In OP's situation I'd just create a new 
directory with each session rather than clear the card like it
sounds like he is doing.

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5735

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Stan Bischof wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Stan Bischof wrote:
>>> Hmm. At that freq you are inserting the card more than 5000
>>> times every couple of months
>>
>> what in the above makes you think the flash card ever leaves the camera?
>>
>>
>
> Actually nothing directly but I for one would never take a nice camera
> and reconnect a USB cord thousands of times per month. I have D80 also
> and when downloads are needed I remove the card.
>
> But you are right- the OP's note implies that he is hooking up
> the USB to the camera.
>
> In which case I agree with the suggestions to fill the card
> before deleting anything. In OP's situation I'd just create a new
> directory with each session rather than clear the card like it
> sounds like he is doing.
>
What about one of those SD cards with built in wifi?  It doesn't solve the 
wear issue, but it means non connecting and disconnecting cards or cables.

The way the original post reads, it almost suggests there's a reason to 
empty the camera after only a few photos.  Like in a photo studio, you 
need the "film" to print out the photos before the client leaves.  If 
that's the case, one of those wifi SD cards would likely speed up that 
process.

    Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web