Help > Laptop Hardware

Built-in Compact Flash-Is it faster than USB 1.1?

(1/2) > >>

gandy:
Here's the situation.

I have an old IBM Thinkpad X30. This is a small lightweight laptop, 12" screen, 1.2GHZ Pentium III, 256MB RAM, no built-in CDROM drive.

It has two USB 1.1 ports and a built-in compact flash reader.

I'm thinking about installing (XP) on a cf card so I don't need a hard drive. I could probably install on a USB flash drive also since I think it will boot off either one. I can buy an 8GB cf card for around $12. I also have extra flash drives around but they are the kind that stick out pretty far. I know I can buy flash drives that don't stick out very far so that would be an option.

My question is, which is faster, compact flash or USB 1.1?

sling-shot:
Compared USB 1.1, it probably is. I am not very sure. There is also the factor of the speed of CF reader.

Just17:
There are often extra USB connections on the motherboard which are not brought out to the case ......  if such exist then a flash stick might fit inside the case ....

I expect the USB version (1.1) will be the limitation regardless what is attached to it

gandy:
Yeah, the flash drive size isn't really a problem since they make very small ones like this 8GB Sandisk



After doing some Googling, it seems that it might be hard to get XP to boot from either CF or USB. I think CF will be faster f I can get it to work.

If anyone has done either, I would like to hear about it.

µT6:
windows xp can be made to work in those devices butit willbe slow

between compact flash and usb 1.1 i would choose usb

that gives me 12mbps that can be easily reaxhed by any device compared to the best compact flash that won't offer 10 reading, forget writing

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page