Compact Flash type I and type II

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:34:35 -0500, ELLIOTx.TakeThisOut@webtv.net (elliot) wrote in
>>> <29639-47BB9FCB-1116.TakeThisOut@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net>:
>>>
>>>> Staples is selling a 2GB CF type I for $18 and a 2GB CF type II for
>>>> $40...Can anyone tell me if there is a good reason to spend more money
>>>> on the type II as my Canon Supershot S20 accepts both Type
>>> No, just the opposite:
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_flash#Type_I_and_Type_II>
>> The references are a 1999 review of a "a 224MB whopper",
>> and a 2004 review of a new $3000 each 8 GB CF-II card.
>>
>> To put it mildly, the Wikipedia cite is incorrect and
>> totally misleading because it is a decade out of date,
>> and simply does not provide a valid answer to the OP's
>> question.
>
> To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
> and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
> thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>
> Is there anything I'm missing?

So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:19:53 GMT, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
wrote in <phror3p28480cmanei3n2uul89oijvq4qm DeleteThis @4ax.com>:

>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:34:35 -0500, ELLIOTx DeleteThis @webtv.net (elliot) wrote in
>>><29639-47BB9FCB-1116 DeleteThis @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net>:
>>>
>>>>Staples is selling a 2GB CF type I for $18 and a 2GB CF type II for
>>>>$40...Can anyone tell me if there is a good reason to spend more money
>>>>on the type II as my Canon Supershot S20 accepts both Type
>>>
>>>No, just the opposite:
>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_flash#Type_I_and_Type_II>
>>The references are a 1999 review of a "a 224MB whopper",
>>and a 2004 review of a new $3000 each 8 GB CF-II card.
>>
>>To put it mildly, the Wikipedia cite is incorrect and
>>totally misleading because it is a decade out of date,
>>and simply does not provide a valid answer to the OP's
>>question.
>
>To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
>and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
>thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>
>Is there anything I'm missing?

No. That's entirely correct.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:10:00 -0800, Paul Furman <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net>
wrote in <gW_uj.5401$Mw.4469@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:34:35 -0500, ELLIOTx DeleteThis @webtv.net (elliot) wrote in
>>>> <29639-47BB9FCB-1116 DeleteThis @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> Staples is selling a 2GB CF type I for $18 and a 2GB CF type II for
>>>>> $40...Can anyone tell me if there is a good reason to spend more money
>>>>> on the type II as my Canon Supershot S20 accepts both Type
>>>> No, just the opposite:
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_flash#Type_I_and_Type_II>
>>> The references are a 1999 review of a "a 224MB whopper",
>>> and a 2004 review of a new $3000 each 8 GB CF-II card.
>>>
>>> To put it mildly, the Wikipedia cite is incorrect and
>>> totally misleading because it is a decade out of date,
>>> and simply does not provide a valid answer to the OP's
>>> question.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
>> and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
>> thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>>
>> Is there anything I'm missing?
>
>So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?

It never did. It just meant thicker, which the microdrive needed, but
can be flash as well.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

Paul Furman <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
>> and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
>> thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>>
>> Is there anything I'm missing?
>
>So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?

It never did.
Microdive meant type 2 because you couldn't fit a microdrive into 3.3mm
height.
But of course as we all know from simple Boolean logic that does NOT imply
type 2 => microdrive.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>Jürgen Exner <jurgenex RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul Furman <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?
>>
>>It never did.
>>Microdive meant type 2 because you couldn't fit a microdrive into 3.3mm
>>height.
>>But of course as we all know from simple Boolean logic that does NOT imply
>>type 2 => microdrive.
>
>Yet the cited Wikipedia article says Type II cards are
>rarely anything other than microdrives...
>
> "The vast majority of all Type II devices are
> Microdrives and other miniature hard drives. Flash
> based Type II devices are rare but a few examples do
> exist."

Which is correct because pretty much anything else can be produced in 3.3mm
thickness.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Jürgen Exner <jurgenex.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Paul Furman <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>> So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?
>>> It never did.
>>> Microdive meant type 2 because you couldn't fit a microdrive into 3.3mm
>>> height.
>>> But of course as we all know from simple Boolean logic that does NOT imply
>>> type 2 => microdrive.
>> Yet the cited Wikipedia article says Type II cards are
>> rarely anything other than microdrives...
>>
>> "The vast majority of all Type II devices are
>> Microdrives and other miniature hard drives. Flash
>> based Type II devices are rare but a few examples do
>> exist."
>
> Which is correct because pretty much anything else can be produced in 3.3mm
> thickness.

So it's most likely a microdrive which is slower, easier to damage &
costs more in this case.
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:16:58 -0900, floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87mypvgz7p.fld.RemoveThis@apaflo.com>:

>Jürgen Exner <jurgenex.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>>>> To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
>>>> and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
>>>> thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything I'm missing?
>>>
>>>So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?
>>
>>It never did.
>>Microdive meant type 2 because you couldn't fit a microdrive into 3.3mm
>>height.
>>But of course as we all know from simple Boolean logic that does NOT imply
>>type 2 => microdrive.
>
>Yet the cited Wikipedia article says Type II cards are
>rarely anything other than microdrives...
>
> "The vast majority of all Type II devices are
> Microdrives and other miniature hard drives. Flash
> based Type II devices are rare but a few examples do
> exist."

Which is of course true.

Surely you can tell the difference between necessary and sufficient
conditions?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:17:34 -0900, floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87ir0jgz6p.fld RemoveThis @apaflo.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:19:53 GMT, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
>>wrote in <phror3p28480cmanei3n2uul89oijvq4qm RemoveThis @4ax.com>:
>>
>>>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>>John Navas <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:34:35 -0500, ELLIOTx RemoveThis @webtv.net (elliot) wrote in
>>>>><29639-47BB9FCB-1116 RemoveThis @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Staples is selling a 2GB CF type I for $18 and a 2GB CF type II for
>>>>>>$40...Can anyone tell me if there is a good reason to spend more money
>>>>>>on the type II as my Canon Supershot S20 accepts both Type
>>>>>
>>>>>No, just the opposite:
>>>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_flash#Type_I_and_Type_II>
>>>>The references are a 1999 review of a "a 224MB whopper",
>>>>and a 2004 review of a new $3000 each 8 GB CF-II card.
>>>>
>>>>To put it mildly, the Wikipedia cite is incorrect and
>>>>totally misleading because it is a decade out of date,
>>>>and simply does not provide a valid answer to the OP's
>>>>question.
>>>
>>>To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
>>>and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
>>>thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>>>
>>>Is there anything I'm missing?
>>
>>No. That's entirely correct.
>
>But the Wikipedia article you cited is *not* correct.

It is correct. If you disagree, then jump right in and fix it. Unless
you'd rather just sit on the sidelines and take inaccurate potshots.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:14:53 -0900, floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87r6f7gzb6.fld DeleteThis @apaflo.com>:

>Jürgen Exner <jurgenex DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:34:35 -0500, ELLIOTx DeleteThis @webtv.net (elliot) wrote in
>>>><29639-47BB9FCB-1116 DeleteThis @storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net>:
>>>>
>>>>>Staples is selling a 2GB CF type I for $18 and a 2GB CF type II for
>>>>>$40...Can anyone tell me if there is a good reason to spend more money
>>>>>on the type II as my Canon Supershot S20 accepts both Type
>>>>
>>>>No, just the opposite:
>>>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_flash#Type_I_and_Type_II>
>>>The references are a 1999 review of a "a 224MB whopper",
>>>and a 2004 review of a new $3000 each 8 GB CF-II card.
>>>
>>>To put it mildly, the Wikipedia cite is incorrect and
>>>totally misleading because it is a decade out of date,
>>>and simply does not provide a valid answer to the OP's
>>>question.
>>
>>To the best of my knowledge the CF spec hasn't changed in the past decade
>>and the only difference between type 1 and type 2 is still the 1.7mm in
>>thickness of the casing, just like the Wikipedia article is stating.
>>
>>Is there anything I'm missing?
>
> "The vast majority of all Type II devices are
> Microdrives and other miniature hard drives."
>
>Is that true?

Yes.

> "Flash based Type II devices are rare but a few
> examples do exist.[9][10]
>
>Is that true? Are the references cited valid information?

Yes and yes.

> "Even the largest capacity cards commonly available
> are Type I cards ..."
>
>Is that true?

Yes.

> " ... some early CF based cameras where the slot is
> too small and some of the poorer quality USB card
> readers with the same problem."
>
>Is that valid or significant?

Yes.

>That is precisely the section that Navas cited.
>
>Is it necessary to go through that line by line?

Apparently so.

>This
>was quoted previously.

Ad nauseum.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> Another Navas "victory" by proclamation.
>
> Facts don't seem to affect you, do they?

Navas is impervious to facts. His body odor is fact repellent. It's a
genetic abberation. Nobody in John's entire family has ever had even a
passing relationship to anything remotely resembling a fact because of
it.
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:52:00 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net>
wrote in <pa2vj.2291$fX7.1391@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:

>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>> Jürgen Exner <jurgenex.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>> So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?
>>>> It never did.
>>>> Microdive meant type 2 because you couldn't fit a microdrive into 3.3mm
>>>> height.
>>>> But of course as we all know from simple Boolean logic that does NOT imply
>>>> type 2 => microdrive.
>>> Yet the cited Wikipedia article says Type II cards are
>>> rarely anything other than microdrives...
>>>
>>> "The vast majority of all Type II devices are
>>> Microdrives and other miniature hard drives. Flash
>>> based Type II devices are rare but a few examples do
>>> exist."
>>
>> Which is correct because pretty much anything else can be produced in 3.3mm
>> thickness.
>
>So it's most likely a microdrive which is slower, easier to damage &
>costs more in this case.

According to the OP it's flash.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:08:22 -0800, Bob Williams <mytbobnospam DeleteThis @cox.net>
wrote in <aF0vj.14479$497.1314@newsfe14.phx>:

>elliot wrote:
>> Staples is selling a 2GB CF type I for $18 and a 2GB CF type II for
>> $40...Can anyone tell me if there is a good reason to spend more money
>> on the type II as my Canon Supershot S20 accepts both Type
>
>To answer your question directly......No.
>There is no valid reason to buy the CFII for your Canon S20.
>The S20 was introduced 8 years ago and cannot take advantage of the
>higher speed that the CFII card MAY offer.
>In fact, I would check with Canon to see if the S20 can even accept a
>2GB card. In the year 2000, a 2 GB CFI card did not exist and I'm not
>sure that a 2GB CFII (Microdrive)existed either. If it did, it would
>probably have cost more than the camera itself.
>Bob Williams

The 2 GB microdrive was introduced in 2003.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdrive#Microdrive_models_by_timeline>

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II 

Paul Furman <paul-.DeleteThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>>> Jürgen Exner <jurgenex.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman <paul-.DeleteThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>> So type II doesn't mean microdrive any more?
>>>> It never did.
>>>> Microdive meant type 2 because you couldn't fit a microdrive into 3.3mm
>>>> height.
>>>> But of course as we all know from simple Boolean logic that does NOT imply
>>>> type 2 => microdrive.
>>> Yet the cited Wikipedia article says Type II cards are
>>> rarely anything other than microdrives...
>>>
>>> "The vast majority of all Type II devices are
>>> Microdrives and other miniature hard drives. Flash
>>> based Type II devices are rare but a few examples do
>>> exist."
>>
>> Which is correct because pretty much anything else can be produced in 3.3mm
>> thickness.
>
>So it's most likely a microdrive which is slower, easier to damage &
>costs more in this case.

Hardly. After all the OP explicitely said in the subject line (as you can
still read there if you can read):
"Compact FLASH type 1 and type II" [emphasis by me]
Furthermore microdrives go for much more than 40$ US.

It is probably flash memory, all right. But just as likely it's an old model
where those 40$ were appropriate when the flash card was new a year ago.
Prices have dropped since then. But because there aren't many type II cards
at all, prices for them might have stayed high.
Anyway, this is pure speculation.

And the OP explicitely asked about the difference between type I and type
II. And the answer to that is a very clear the only difference is a 1.7mm
thicker form factor of the card. It doesn't tell you anything about speed or
storage type.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Compact Flash type I and type II