Anyone try an 32GB SDHC card yet?

[ricerocket]

I've seen a couple people have success w/ 16GB cards.

How about 32GB? Newegg has a Kingston Class 4 down to $74...which is right around twice the price of a 16GB card.

[phr]

I bought one a month or so when it was $74. The price jumped immediately afterwards so I bought it at the right time. 32gb kingston CF cards went from $60 to $110! I actually bought the sdhc card for a music player, but tried it out in my T61 sd slot and it worked fine. I realize you're posting in the x40 forum so I ought to try the 32gb card in my x40, but I seem to remember that I used an 8gb sdhc card in my x40 and it seemed to work. I think of sdhc in the x40 as being slightly iffy since it's really intended as an SD slot and I've heard the sdhc signal levels are a little different. I'm not sure what the situation is with the T61. The safest bet would be to use a USB or Cardbus or Expresscard reader but the internal slot is sure convenient.

[sjthinkpader]

I tried a 4GB SDHC card in a X40/WinXP and it locked up the computer. I tried that same card in a X41 and it worked fine.

Newegg.com has the 32GB 233x Ridata CF card for $76 before tax and S/H. I was happy with the 8GB version running WindowsXP in my X41 but it is too small. So I order a 32GB card from Newegg.

[visionviper]

SDHC is too slow to be used as a good SSD (at least for an operating system). Transfer rates top out at about 20mb/s read and less for writing.


I did use a SDHC card for a few applications on my old Eee, and it worked ok.

[virge]

SDHC is too slow to be used as a good SSD (at least for an operating system). Transfer rates top out at about 20mb/s read and less for writing.

There's a version of the Sandisk extreme SDHC which is advertised at 30mb/sec that I've been looking at trying as an SSD. Haven't found the time though. Too many projects going on... and its also peak fishing season for me.

[Pain]

It works but you need to have SP3 on XP

[sjthinkpader]

What does XP SP3 do for SSD?

[visionviper]

Nothing. Windows 7 is the only Windows operating system that is designed to recognize SSDs and change it's behavior accordingly.

[Pain]

XP SP3 gives support for high capacity SDHC cards, but does nothing for SSD.

[mikeh]

SDHC is too slow to be used as a good SSD (at least for an operating system). Transfer rates top out at about 20mb/s read and less for writing.

The built-in SD card reader of the X40 is a great deal slower than that!

But with a USB card-reader, an SDHC can be comparable to the 1.8" Hitachi hard-disk in speed.
And with write-caching enabled, the slower write-speed does not matter.

[Radioguy]

Isn't a SDHC card's lifespan shorter than that of a SSD? (or supposed to be?)

[visionviper]

There's a version of the Sandisk extreme SDHC which is advertised at 30mb/sec that I've been looking at trying as an SSD. Haven't found the time though. Too many projects going on... and its also peak fishing season for me.

Yes, advertised at 30MB/sec. Also keep in mind SDHC cards are optimized and targeted for camera use - not as a drive in a computer.

To get a really fast SDHC cards you will have to spend enough money that it would be worth it to go ahead and spend just a little bit more (if you even have to) to get a SSD that is going to be twice as fast.

[mikeh]

To get a really fast SDHC cars you will have to...

Hmmm... This is a forum for old X-series laptops. The high-performance forum is down the corridor.

[visionviper]

Hmmm... This is a forum for old X-series laptops. The high-performance forum is down the corridor.

It isn't about being high-performance it's about being more responsive. The whole point of adding a SSD to something like an X40 is to breath new life into the laptop and let it run a bit quicker.

I'm just pointing out that for the money and what you get it is simply better to buy a SSD instead of a SDHC card - especially considering SSD prices have really started dropping fast (anyone else see the $115 32gb SLC 1.8" Samsung SSD on Newegg?).

They also had a 64gb version for under $200.

[sjthinkpader]

...especially considering SSD prices have really started dropping fast (anyone else see the $115 32gb SLC 1.8" Samsung SSD on Newegg?).

They also had a 64gb version for under $200.

Got a link? I can't find it.

[visionviper]

Got a link? I can't find it.

They sold out of them and they aren't getting any back but it was the Samsung MCBQE32G8MPP-0VA00. I realize that it is SATA but it is merely an example.

There were some on eBay for $140 for awhile but now the price wen't back up.

Just to clarify my earlier points: yes, you can use a SDHC card and yes it will probably be ok - by why not just wait a little while longer and pick up a faster SSD for the same price or just a little bit more? If you are truly set on using a SDHC card I would recommend getting a Class 6. They are supposed to be able to provide a minimum 6MB/sec write speed and they are more or less the same price as others.

[tomh009]

Yes, advertised at 30MB/sec.

The Sandisk Extreme III cards have been independently tested to do 26 MB/s.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/reader ... =6007-9438

Also keep in mind SDHC cards are optimized and targeted for camera use - not as a drive in a computer.

And what's the difference? Both need high performance, both need reliability, both need many erase cycles, both have similar challenges when getting full.

[visionviper]

And what's the difference? Both need high performance, both need reliability, both need many erase cycles, both have similar challenges when getting full.

Cameras are not constantly writing to the SD card (unless it's a camcorder and it's taking video) like a computer would. Besides, I'm not saying that it's going to cause some sort of big problem or anything - just pointing out they are not specifically designed for use as a computer's drive the way SSDs are.

[phr]

Main difference between computer and camera is the camera writes almost entirely sequentially. Depending on the computer workload, the computer may make much heavier use of small-block random writes. If you look at the Crystalmark 4k random write speeds for typical CF cards, they are absolutely pathetic compared with the sequential speeds. I mean like 100x slower. Early SSD's were the same way. More recent SSD's are trending better on this issue, as manufacturers get more clued in.

[tomh009]

Cameras are not constantly writing to the SD card (unless it's a camcorder and it's taking video) like a computer would. Besides, I'm not saying that it's going to cause some sort of big problem or anything - just pointing out they are not specifically designed for use as a computer's drive the way SSDs are.

Pro-level CF and SD cards (like Sandisk's Extreme series, for example) are designed to be written to and completely filled several times per day[/] (I know I do this on a regular basis), using the same kind of filesystems that computers use. Yes, they are designed for a different use, but when you get down to the flash memory level, the demands on the memory are just as demanding. The mitigating factor in a camera is that typically the cards are reformatted rather than erasing individual files ...

[visionviper]

You make it seem like I am saying reliability will be the problem - that is not the case. My concerns revolve around performance, not reliability.

[mikeh]

designed to be written to and completely filled several times per day[/]

Thats nothing. A computer may re-write the same block serveral times per minute.
Your camera places very even wear on the card, so no single block gets used very often.
(as well as all the performace issues mentioned above - 4k blocks vs 4MB jpegs or continuous video is very different.)

using the same kind of filesystems that computers use.

Not this century! Don't cameras use FAT32?
Modern computers use journalling filesystems. Or NTFS as a bare minimum.

[sjthinkpader]

...
Thats nothing. A computer may re-write the same block serveral times per minute.
...

After turning Superfetch, indexing, defrag off on a 32GB CF card loaded with Win7 RC, the HDD LED doesn't come on at all.