[bookport] Re: compact flash card sizes

  • From: "Otto Zamora" <8zamora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:13:53 -0400

Hello,

Logical, but there is the price, a two gg card will not cost as much as 1 gb
card.

Otto 

-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:52 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: compact flash card sizes

I think you are right.  In fact, probably best to buy a bunch of 1 gb cards
so if they break you are just out 1 gb <smile>, just curious.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Smith" <WSmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:10 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: compact flash card sizes


> Why not buy 2 2GB cards instead and then, when one of them dies (as it
> almost certainly will, sooner or later), you're out only half the momey?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:07 PM
> To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bookport] Re: compact flash card sizes
>
> If you bought a 4 gb card that has fat32 instead of fat16 could this
> card be=20
> formated in the book port and would it then work?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: "ROB MEREDITH" <rmeredith@xxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 8:16 AM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: compact flash card sizes
>
>
>> Rich:
>>
>> I would stick with 2GB for now. The reason is that 2GB is as high as
>> you can go with the FAT (FAT16) file system, and FAT16 is the
> preferred
>> file system for the Book Port. FAT32 can be used with limited success,
>> but I wouldn't go there for now.
>>
>> Rob Meredith
>>
>>>>> richcav@xxxxxxxxxxx 04/13/05 06:50PM >>>
>> what is the largest compact flash card size available that can be used
>> on the book port?
>>
>>=20
>
>
> 





Other related posts: