|
533 of 555 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
WinXP and USB 2.0 Mini-Drives Degraded Performance-CAUTION!, September 24, 2003
This is a generic review of Windows XP's support of USB 2.0 mini-drives that are attached to USB 2.0 hardware ports. If this is not your environment, then please pass on this review. Otherwise, you would serve yourself well to share my experiences and testing. The rating of the Lexar Jumpdrive Pro 2.0 will either be a 5-star or a 1-star depending on your environment, so I gave it a 3-star. (There was no problem with any of my 2.0 mini-drives when I tested them on WIN98 with USB 1.1 ports.) I'm not picking on the Lexar.I'll go right to the bottom line and tell you that I've found that these drives may perform VERY poorly in Windows XP SP1. They will appear to perform well, compared with similar USB 1.1 drives, only if you are copying a very small number of very large files. They will perform incredibly slowly compared to their USB 1.1 brethren, if you reverse the scenario and copy a directory of say 500 or more very small files. I'll provide the solution now and then tell you about some tests I've run. THE SOLUTION: Format your mini-drives as "NTFS". (THEY DO NOT COME FORMATTED THAT WAY!) If you do, they will perform very well on USB 2.0 ports under WinXP SP1. It does mean, however, that you won't have portability to a WIN95, WIN98, WINME system (if you want high performance in WinXP). If I've still got your attention, read on please. I own an Iomega 1.1 Mini Drive and have purchased and returned two Lexar JumpDrive Pro 2.0 devices, a SanDisk Cruzer Mini, and almost returned my newest, a PNY Attache 2.0. I've also had a dialogue with someone in a forum who issued a similar complaint about his Sony MicroVault 2.0 device. I kept the PNY to have something to test with as I probed this issue, and have now just purchased another Lexar JumpDrive Pro because it prices well, and it also performs well if formatted as "NTFS". After considerable experimentation and a frustrating 20 or so hours on the internet, I made my discovery! After reading an Amazon reviewer boast that he copied a single 135MB file in under a minute, I decided to try that myself ... and it copied quickly, considerably beating the performance of my Iomega 1.1 device. Astounded at this, I became curious about whether WinXP had an issue with FAT and FAT32 on these devices. I created a benchmark of a directory containing 508 icons totalling only 1MB of data, occupying 2MB of disk. Formatted at the default FAT or FAT32, the copy took an incredible 2 min. 56 secs., and I could read each file name as Windows revealed them during the copy. I decided that, before returning the PNY, I would format it as "NTFS" just "to see what would happen". It copied in 2 or 3 seconds!!!!! To prove to myself this wasn't a freak event, I went back to my earlier benchmark which was a client's web site having a root folder weighing 44MB and containing 1800+ files. It had previous copied to my Iomega 1.1 Mini Drive in 1 min. 34 secs., but on my Lexar JumpDrive Pro 2.0 and the SanDisk Cruser Mini 2.0 the times ranged between 5+ mins. to just under 10 mins. On the PNY 2.0 device formatted "NTFS", it took around 52 secs. My newly purchased Lexar ran in about the same 52 secs. (compared to 8+ mins. when formatted FAT32) My final benchmark was a folder containing 3 files, weighing 44.5MB. They copied in 46 secs. to the Iomega 1.1, in 23 secs. to the PNY 2.0, and in 19 secs. to the new Lexar. To lend a bit of credibility to these tests, I should tell you that I had taken the Lexar 2.0, the SanDisk Cruzer 2.0 and my Iomega 1.1 to a demo computer at Best Buy and the results were consistent. That machine was a Compaq Presario with 6 "Certified" 2.0 ports with WinXP SP1. So it's unlikely that my personal environment was unique. This has been surely an oddball "review", assuming Amazon publishes it, but it should dramatically benefit many of you buying these devices. Thanks for your time.
|
Saving...
