| 1 |
William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... |
| 3 |
>> This thread has been interesting tho. At least I know that a Sandisk |
| 4 |
>> card at least tries to fail in a way that I can get the data off that |
| 5 |
>> did get written to the card. Hey, that's a lot better than some I |
| 6 |
>> guess. :-D I've had some other brands that when they die, they dead. |
| 7 |
>> You get nothing at all. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Dale |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> :-) :-) |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> From memory (I found some articles describing what was happening when |
| 14 |
> investigating a while back) - its common with other brands too so |
| 15 |
> might be part of the specification - if it detects a failure, it |
| 16 |
> forces permanent read only mode to enable data recovery. Some cards |
| 17 |
> may be put back into write mode by software but not all and I wouldn't |
| 18 |
> trust it anyway. I have Kingston, Samsung and Sandisk cards - I |
| 19 |
> regard Samsung as very slightly better but not enough to go out of my |
| 20 |
> way and pay more for them. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> BillK |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I tend to buy Sandisk and Kingston as well. I'll add Samsung to my list |
| 30 |
tho. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
In the past, most have failed and I lose whatever was on the card. I |
| 33 |
think this is the first time one failed in this way. I guess it depends |
| 34 |
on how it fails tho. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dale |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
:-) :-) |
Archives