Lexar Media JD256-231 256 MB USB 2.0 JumpDrive
by LEXAR MEDIA INC
(Click here)
Digital Photo Product Details
Manufacturer: LEXAR MEDIA INCAudio: English (Original Language)
Model: JD256-231
Product features:
- 256 MB of storage space
- Can hold any kind of data--MP3 files, pictures, video, etc.
- Data protection light that blinks until your data is safely stored
- Built-in hole where you can add an optional key ring
- PC and Macintosh compatible
- AmazonBasics USB 2.0 A-Male to Mini-B Cable (6 Feet / 1.8 Meters)
- AmazonBasics USB 2.0 A-Male to A-Female Extension Cable (3.3 Feet/1.0 Meter)
- AmazonBasics USB 2.0 A-Male to A-Female Extension Cable (9.8 Feet/3.0 Meters)
- AmazonBasics USB 2.0 A-Male to B-Male Cable (6 Feet / 1.8 Meters)
- AmazonBasics IEEE 1394 4-Pin/6-Pin FireWire Cable (6 Feet/1.8 Meters)
Digital Cameras Photo Reviews of Lexar Media JD256-231 256 MB USB 2.0 JumpDrive
Customer Review: Performance Bad For 2.0 Device with WinXP - Caveat Emptor
Summary: 2 Stars
SEE IMPORTANT NOTE AT BOTTOM (Updated 9/18/03)My introduction to the Lexar was filled with enthusiasm. 200MB in < 50 seconds, the package said! I copied a 43MB directory using Windows Explorer drag and drop. It took 5+ minutes compared to 1 min 30+ seconds on the Iomega USB 1.1. I repeated the timings; little change.
I went on to spend 4 hours or so on the internet at Lexar's site (no downloads, no user tips, worthless), Microsoft's site (informative but no help), and hours on Google. After a pathetic Lexar chat session that aborted, I called them and we decided that the Lexar might be defective. Took it back to OfficeMax for a replacement, and the replacement ran just as badly.
I diddled with my WinXP system for a couple hours removing some suspect drivers from Iomega and Veritas, changed my CMOS to disable "USB Emulation", made sure the Device Manager Policies tab was set to "Optimize for Performance", turned off McAfee AntiVirus, and other tweaks. In all, no improvement whatever!
Before taking the Lexar back to OfficeMax, I tried two other things: 1) Downloaded the WIN98 drivers and ran the device on my 5 year-old Dell with Win98 and USB 1.1; 2) Found a WinXP system totally unrelated to mine and did a benchmark there.
1) My old Dell with the new drivers ran the same 43MB copy in only 1 min.34 secs on the Lexar (big improvement over WinXP and 2.0 ports), but then the Iomega Mini Drive improved as well to 1 min. 10 secs.
2) Just now came back from Best Buy who let me use a Compaq Presario with equivalent memory and processor speed (not that this is that important) and with 6 "Certified" USB 2.0 ports, running also on WinXP SP1. I copied a 24MB directory from their C: drive in 54 secs. on the Iomega Mini Drive and a whopping 2 mins. 26 secs. on the Lexar JumpDrive. (According to Lexar's packaging this should have taken 6 or so seconds.) And, yes, I did remember to set the Policies to "Optimize for Performance".
The only conclusions I can draw from all this are: 1) The Lexar 2.0 can't come close to Iomega's 1.1 Mini Drive and their USB 1.1 Zip 250, except on a system with USB 1.1 ports. 2) there might be "bad blood" between the Lexar and either WinXP or 2.0 hardware. I lean toward there being a flaw in WinXP SP1. It would be nice if the vendors could supply their own drivers (tested) for Win2000/XP.
I'm not trying to disparage Lexar since other 2.0 mini or flash drives could perform as badly. I just tried a SanDisk Cruzer Mini 2.0 and obtained similar poor performance and I saw a newsgroup posting complaining about a Sony Micro Vault 2.0.
My advice to you: Buy your drive from a vendor that will provide a quick 100% refund, benchmark the drive you select against a name brand 1.1 version (especially if you have 2.0 USB ports), don't pay a premium for a 2.0 drive if you have 1.1 USB ports. And ... be wary of the hype on the packaging. USB 2.0 means many different things.
(ADDENDUM 9/18/03)
What I've said above is still true but I've pretty much isolated the problem to WinXP and the buggy way it handles FAT and FAT32. I formatted my PNY Attache 2.0 as "NTFS" and the performance took a quantum leap upward. Unfortunately these drives come formatted at FAT or FAT32. So ... if you're having slow performance and don't need portability to non-NTFS computers, this will likely give you an unbelievable boost.
Those of you who raved about the performance of this device (with the default FAT format) are probably only copying a single large file. Try copying a directory with 500 small files and you'll likely agree with me. Hopefully Microsoft will fix this problem and I'll pull this negative review.