On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:56:05 +0800, "k"
wrote:


"Archibald" wrote in message
.. .
| On Tue, 27 May 2008 17:31:38 +0800, "k" wrote:

| According to Galbraith, the apparent speed of a memory card depends a
| lot on the camera it is used in. Could be very fast on one device but
| slower on another, and one card could be faster or slower than another
| depending on the camera.

and in a pocket PC i'm sure its the same, however as I'm sure no camera
owner cares which camera is fastest,

You might feel you are sure but it is not so. Many (most?)
cameras are slower than what are now dirt cheap flash cards
if you don't need over 4-8GB (or higher in the future), so
the speed of the camera is what determines how long one has
to wait inbetween shots. Sometimes the camera has a
reasonably sided buffer, so you can get a few shots off but
not very many these days thanks to the ever growing
resolutions (Unless one chooses lower res than the max their
camera supports, which I for one never do choosing to resize
later if I didn't need that res... which also makes for
better, reduced granularity should some post process
filtering be needed).



... rather they'd be more concerned which
media is fastest for them, and a comparative speed would be more use than
any raw figures

Yes, that too is important. Remember that many people
aren't reading from the camera, they'll take the card out
and pop in a second empty one leaving the reading to another
device... probably a USB card reader.




say like for this, where the hardware is fixed and the media varies..
http://wiki.eeeuser.com/diskbenchmarks

"Please note that numbers from different benchmarks are actually not
comparable to each other! "

That is useful, yet one person's goal is not always
another's. If performance matters it's not just a matter of
picking the memory but also the device reading and writing,
especially when it is the more costly and time consuming
item to replace if a bad choice was made.