SimpleTech 256mb CF: Very Sloooow!

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76 seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

I don't know their testing methods, but an 8 shot sequence in RAW took about 85 seconds to write on my Simpletech 256 card. I don't have any other card to compare with.

Are you getting different times than that on other media? I was considering purchasing a new 512k card and I'd like to know.

David

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

8 shots same subject, blank CF cards. Time from 1st shot until red light goes out.

Transcend 512 -> 33 secs
SimpleTech 256 -> 38 secs

SimpleTech # 90000-00992-007 020313-FL1-002

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

--
Ed F.

Ed Freedenburg said:

Transcend 512 -> 33 secs
SimpleTech 256 -> 38 secs

SimpleTech # 90000-00992-007 020313-FL1-002

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

--
Ed F.

Click to expand...

--
Ed F.

Looks like I've been taken! No wonder this Simpletech card was only $99.00!

The must have switched to a cheaper manufacturing method.

David,

Got mine for $99.00 at buy.com five weeks ago.

David Hood said:

Looks like I've been taken! No wonder this Simpletech card was only
$99.00!

The must have switched to a cheaper manufacturing method.

Click to expand...

--
Ed F.

In my completely unscientific testing I found the following:

Fastest to slowest

1. IBM 1G Microdrive
2. SimpleTech 256
3. Sandisk Ultra 256
4. Mr. Flash 256

The IBM was noticeably faster than the SimpleTech card (once the drive had spun up, of course), but the SimpleTech is useable. The sandisk Ultra is almost identical to the Simpletech in terms of performance, but feels just a hair slower. The Mr. Flash card, while cheap, was almost twice as slow as the SimpleTech card.

I tested by taking a shot and watching the blinking LCD.

I loved my Microdrive, but mine died on me. I believe I damaged it when put it in the CF Card reader and didn't get all the pins seated correctly.

Peter,

Can you share your timings with us?

Peter Uchytil said:

In my completely unscientific testing I found the following:

Fastest to slowest

1. IBM 1G Microdrive
2. SimpleTech 256
3. Sandisk Ultra 256
4. Mr. Flash 256

The IBM was noticeably faster than the SimpleTech card (once the
drive had spun up, of course), but the SimpleTech is useable. The
sandisk Ultra is almost identical to the Simpletech in terms of
performance, but feels just a hair slower. The Mr. Flash card,
while cheap, was almost twice as slow as the SimpleTech card.

I tested by taking a shot and watching the blinking LCD.

I loved my Microdrive, but mine died on me. I believe I damaged it
when put it in the CF Card reader and didn't get all the pins
seated correctly.

Click to expand...

My s/n is different: the plastic package says 91000-40414-000; the card itself differs slightly, 90000-40414-000.

We've been snookered!

BTW, I tested my neighbor's Transcend 512Mb. The 8 RAW burst process/write that took the SimpleTech 76 seconds was crushed by the Transcend in 28 seconds!

Ed Freedenburg said:

Transcend 512 -> 33 secs
SimpleTech 256 -> 38 secs

SimpleTech # 90000-00992-007 020313-FL1-002

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

--
Ed F.

Click to expand...

I am able to confirm the same behavior.

I received two of the same cards (SimpleTech 256MB) from Amazon.com. I just tested a burst of 8 RAW files, then timed from red light on to red light off. Sorry -- only single second resolution.

SimpleTech 256MB 80s for 54.2MB = 694 k/s
Lexar 4x 80MB 59s for 54.1MB = 939 k/s

This is in a D60. I tested the ST card twice and got identical results (690k/s).

As you'll note, we both get about 700Kb/s, while Rob's numbers are about 1200Kb/s. The wimpy Lexar 4x beats these numbers by a good margin.

The good part for me is that the cards were cheap and the way I am currently taking pictures it isn't a problem -- the D60's buffer is nice and I've been using JPEG instead of RAW. In my two days of owning the D60 I truly have never had a problem. But then I'm coming to the D60 straight from a film camera and have the "every shutter press costs money" thing to overcome.

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

This is disturbing. Have any of you recent Simple Tech owners talked to the company to find out what's up with their sudden drop in performance?

Dana Jacobsen said:

I received two of the same cards (SimpleTech 256MB) from
Amazon.com. I just tested a burst of 8 RAW files, then timed from
red light on to red light off. Sorry -- only single second
resolution.

SimpleTech 256MB 80s for 54.2MB = 694 k/s
Lexar 4x 80MB 59s for 54.1MB = 939 k/s

This is in a D60. I tested the ST card twice and got identical
results (690k/s).

As you'll note, we both get about 700Kb/s, while Rob's numbers are
about 1200Kb/s. The wimpy Lexar 4x beats these numbers by a good
margin.

The good part for me is that the cards were cheap and the way I am
currently taking pictures it isn't a problem -- the D60's buffer is
nice and I've been using JPEG instead of RAW. In my two days of
owning the D60 I truly have never had a problem. But then I'm
coming to the D60 straight from a film camera and have the "every
shutter press costs money" thing to overcome.

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

to test the speed of the card accurately ? this way we can compare our speeds... I have a feeling the 256mb is not the same as the 512mb, if you rememeber the fast card that all were recommending to us was the 512 version, and according to the famous simpletech PDF files, it's supposed to be identical to the 256mb, but i too seem to be unhappy with th e performance, well not impressed is the right term, it's the same speed [casually tested] as my old Kodak 128MB card, which is supposed to be quite slow... so what 's the nest way to test and get the accurate figure on the speed ?

I do not know if SimpleTech has changed their cards or not. However, I can tell you the following.

Viking currently is considering changing our controller on the CF256M in order to offer a more competitive price on the card. If Viking does decide to change our controllers I am pushing Viking extremely hard to offer it under a different part number (i.e. 4X, VC Value, etc.). In our preliminary tests there are some controllers out there that are significantly less expensive but also offer a significant decrease in performance.

Viking's competitors are in the sub $100 range for a 256MB Compact Flash card and they are taking some of our marketshare (which has become rather significant in the eWorld over the past few quarters). With our current design and controller Viking would not sustain an offer on our 256MB Compact Flash cards at a sub $100 price. We would perhaps do it for a week or two as a promotion but not long term (unless our controller costs come down--which is possible).

My question to the group is this, would you prefer a 256MB Compact Flash card from Viking that was in the sub $100 range that used a different controller, or would you prefer us to stay slightly above the $100 mark and offer it with our current controller and guarantee performance? Would you like to see Viking offer both options? Understand that the controller is not everything to a Compact Flash card, there are other components that effect the speed and performance of the card (i.e. flash chips used, die, layout, etc.). The controller though does create an impact on the card's performance.

Did SimpleTech change controllers to offer lower pricing, perhaps--it is definitely easy to offer a sub $100 price with 'some' of the controllers out there. However, I do not know if they actually did this or not.

Sincerely,

David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.

Al Goldis said:

Dana Jacobsen said:

I received two of the same cards (SimpleTech 256MB) from
Amazon.com. I just tested a burst of 8 RAW files, then timed from
red light on to red light off. Sorry -- only single second
resolution.

SimpleTech 256MB 80s for 54.2MB = 694 k/s
Lexar 4x 80MB 59s for 54.1MB = 939 k/s

This is in a D60. I tested the ST card twice and got identical
results (690k/s).

As you'll note, we both get about 700Kb/s, while Rob's numbers are
about 1200Kb/s. The wimpy Lexar 4x beats these numbers by a good
margin.

The good part for me is that the cards were cheap and the way I am
currently taking pictures it isn't a problem -- the D60's buffer is
nice and I've been using JPEG instead of RAW. In my two days of
owning the D60 I truly have never had a problem. But then I'm
coming to the D60 straight from a film camera and have the "every
shutter press costs money" thing to overcome.

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.
http://config.vikingcomponents.com/dpreview

I don't claim to represent the majority, but for me, performance is hands down more important than the difference in price between say $88 and $110. I would never knowingly buy a low-performance card no matter how cheap it was.

TheVikingGuy said:

I do not know if SimpleTech has changed their cards or not.
However, I can tell you the following.

Viking currently is considering changing our controller on the
CF256M in order to offer a more competitive price on the card. If
Viking does decide to change our controllers I am pushing Viking
extremely hard to offer it under a different part number (i.e. 4X,
VC Value, etc.). In our preliminary tests there are some
controllers out there that are significantly less expensive but
also offer a significant decrease in performance.

Viking's competitors are in the sub $100 range for a 256MB Compact
Flash card and they are taking some of our marketshare (which has
become rather significant in the eWorld over the past few
quarters). With our current design and controller Viking would not
sustain an offer on our 256MB Compact Flash cards at a sub $100
price. We would perhaps do it for a week or two as a promotion but
not long term (unless our controller costs come down--which is
possible).

My question to the group is this, would you prefer a 256MB Compact
Flash card from Viking that was in the sub $100 range that used a
different controller, or would you prefer us to stay slightly above
the $100 mark and offer it with our current controller and
guarantee performance? Would you like to see Viking offer both
options? Understand that the controller is not everything to a
Compact Flash card, there are other components that effect the
speed and performance of the card (i.e. flash chips used, die,
layout, etc.). The controller though does create an impact on the
card's performance.

Did SimpleTech change controllers to offer lower pricing,
perhaps--it is definitely easy to offer a sub $100 price with
'some' of the controllers out there. However, I do not know if
they actually did this or not.

Sincerely,

David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.

Click to expand...

Yes, my philosophy is that cards are cheap now (whether it is $95 or $115 dollars). I would think that at this point people would prefer to pay a little more for a quality product for just $15 - $20. Afterall, you are going to own the card for years to come and you don't want to be stuck with something that frustrates you everytime you try to use your digital camera.

However, the lower priced cards (even by a few dollars sometimes) tend to get the sales. Sure, we have very loyal customers that purchase for the performance (such as yourself) but it is the small minority.

Any other comments or opinions?

Al Goldis said:

TheVikingGuy said:

I do not know if SimpleTech has changed their cards or not.
However, I can tell you the following.

Viking currently is considering changing our controller on the
CF256M in order to offer a more competitive price on the card. If
Viking does decide to change our controllers I am pushing Viking
extremely hard to offer it under a different part number (i.e. 4X,
VC Value, etc.). In our preliminary tests there are some
controllers out there that are significantly less expensive but
also offer a significant decrease in performance.

Viking's competitors are in the sub $100 range for a 256MB Compact
Flash card and they are taking some of our marketshare (which has
become rather significant in the eWorld over the past few
quarters). With our current design and controller Viking would not
sustain an offer on our 256MB Compact Flash cards at a sub $100
price. We would perhaps do it for a week or two as a promotion but
not long term (unless our controller costs come down--which is
possible).

My question to the group is this, would you prefer a 256MB Compact
Flash card from Viking that was in the sub $100 range that used a
different controller, or would you prefer us to stay slightly above
the $100 mark and offer it with our current controller and
guarantee performance? Would you like to see Viking offer both
options? Understand that the controller is not everything to a
Compact Flash card, there are other components that effect the
speed and performance of the card (i.e. flash chips used, die,
layout, etc.). The controller though does create an impact on the
card's performance.

Did SimpleTech change controllers to offer lower pricing,
perhaps--it is definitely easy to offer a sub $100 price with
'some' of the controllers out there. However, I do not know if
they actually did this or not.

Sincerely,

David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.
http://config.vikingcomponents.com/dpreview

TheVikingGuy said:

Yes, my philosophy is that cards are cheap now (whether it is $95
or $115 dollars). I would think that at this point people would
prefer to pay a little more for a quality product for just $15 -
$20. Afterall, you are going to own the card for years to come and
you don't want to be stuck with something that frustrates you
everytime you try to use your digital camera.

However, the lower priced cards (even by a few dollars sometimes)
tend to get the sales. Sure, we have very loyal customers that
purchase for the performance (such as yourself) but it is the small
minority.

Any other comments or opinions?

J. Roberts wrote:

Click to expand...

I am going to buy a Viking 256 mb card this weekend, based on the review on this website. If Viking decreases performance to offer a cheaper price, I would no longer purchase Viking products. Unfortunately, most people are cheap and only look at cost.

Currently I only use Flash as a backup method in case I fill up my microdrives. But if I you made a cheaper/lower performance card I would be hard pressed to buy it over a slightly more expensive high performance card.

So if you do decide to do this I would highly recommend that you clearly label the new card as a "value" card and the high performance card as a "Pro", "performance", or "elite" card so that it is clear what you are buying.

TheVikingGuy said:

Viking currently is considering changing our controller on the
CF256M in order to offer a more competitive price on the card. If
Viking does decide to change our controllers I am pushing Viking
extremely hard to offer it under a different part number (i.e. 4X,
VC Value, etc.). In our preliminary tests there are some
controllers out there that are significantly less expensive but
also offer a significant decrease in performance.

Viking's competitors are in the sub $100 range for a 256MB Compact
Flash card and they are taking some of our marketshare (which has
become rather significant in the eWorld over the past few
quarters). With our current design and controller Viking would not
sustain an offer on our 256MB Compact Flash cards at a sub $100
price. We would perhaps do it for a week or two as a promotion but
not long term (unless our controller costs come down--which is
possible).

My question to the group is this, would you prefer a 256MB Compact
Flash card from Viking that was in the sub $100 range that used a
different controller, or would you prefer us to stay slightly above
the $100 mark and offer it with our current controller and
guarantee performance? Would you like to see Viking offer both
options? Understand that the controller is not everything to a
Compact Flash card, there are other components that effect the
speed and performance of the card (i.e. flash chips used, die,
layout, etc.). The controller though does create an impact on the
card's performance.

Did SimpleTech change controllers to offer lower pricing,
perhaps--it is definitely easy to offer a sub $100 price with
'some' of the controllers out there. However, I do not know if
they actually did this or not.

Sincerely,

David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.

Al Goldis said:

Dana Jacobsen said:

I received two of the same cards (SimpleTech 256MB) from
Amazon.com. I just tested a burst of 8 RAW files, then timed from
red light on to red light off. Sorry -- only single second
resolution.

SimpleTech 256MB 80s for 54.2MB = 694 k/s
Lexar 4x 80MB 59s for 54.1MB = 939 k/s

This is in a D60. I tested the ST card twice and got identical
results (690k/s).

As you'll note, we both get about 700Kb/s, while Rob's numbers are
about 1200Kb/s. The wimpy Lexar 4x beats these numbers by a good
margin.

The good part for me is that the cards were cheap and the way I am
currently taking pictures it isn't a problem -- the D60's buffer is
nice and I've been using JPEG instead of RAW. In my two days of
owning the D60 I truly have never had a problem. But then I'm
coming to the D60 straight from a film camera and have the "every
shutter press costs money" thing to overcome.

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
David Payne
eBusiness Channel Manager
Viking Components, Inc.
http://config.vikingcomponents.com/dpreview

Click to expand...

Has SimpleTech switched to a non Hitachi controller?

That seems to be the consistent difference between their card and the other cards on the Rogalbraith site. The SimpleTechs use a Hitachi controller.

This may not have anything to do with making the cards cheaper. If you notice on the Rogalbraith review the lexar cards that are really slow on the D30 seem to scream on the D60. I guess there is some sort of synergy in the Hitachi controller and the D30.

I would like to find out what cards are using the hitachi if anyone knows.

James,

Please be assured that SimpleTech stands by it's products. We noticed a quality issue with the controller identified by the part number you supplied in this forum(9000-xxx etc). This issue was corected quickly, unfortunately, some cards did ship before we were able to replace the few controllers. We have, and always will, stand by our product. We continue to be one of the few US companies that manufacture CompactFlash cards, and will continue to do so in the future with Hitachi controllers and IC's. We are very proud of our product, it's performance and competitive price. SimpleTech will gladly replace your card. Please visit our web site; http://www.simpletech.com , for our return policy and procedures. We value your business and will do whatever is necessary to rectify this problem you experienced.
D. Abbott
Flash Product Manager

James Mcafee said:

Could SimpleTech have changed the speed of their 256Mb CF?

This week I received 2 SimpleTech 256Mb CF from Buy.com (SimpleTech
part number STI-CF/256), identical in look to the reviews by Phil
Askey and Rob Galbraith.

My first impression in my D30 was that it was slower than my 1Gb
Microdrive. Then I tried it in my D60. I could barbaque a chicken
in less time than it took to write a burst of RAW.

So using the methodologies of Rob and Phil, I tested the speed with
both JPEG large/fine and RAW. This included formatting the card for
each test. The battery was fresh, etc.

I confirmed consistently that the write speeds were 50-60% of the
rates that both reviewers calculated, corrected for file size (my
subject was essentially black, and the actual file sizes were much
smaller than the reviewer's, about 1.5Mb for the JPEG and 5.3Mb for
the RAW). The actual data rate averaged close to 700Kb/s. The time
it took to process and write an 8 burst RAW (5.3Mb ea) was 76
seconds!

Has anybody else come across this?

Click to expand...

Thanks James for getting this whole thing started. I checked out if my card with similar #s could be a problem.

Got this ret. email w/ better directions for the return. Turns out you have to call their tech support for an "RMA Number" Here's Abbot's ret. email to me:

Here is the link to our RMA site. Yes, you probably have one of the
affected cards. To ensure you are completely satisfied, return the card and
we will send you a replacement. We can't be sure if you have an affected
card until we test the card here in the factory. Please refer to the web
address below and follow the instructions for the return of the card.
Thank-you for your purchase of SimpleTech products.
http://www.simpletech.com/warranty_policies/consumer/c_warranty_rmaservice.html

Neal Martin