Built in card reader (compact flash) in Macs?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I know this is a bit far fetched, and maybe not practical, but damn it would be pretty convenient to have a built in card reader in every Mac.



Not sure what the standard is, but I know there are 6 in 1 type adapters out there with one slot so you can pop in what ever type of media card you have. So what's wrong with these adapters? Well, nothing except the waste of a USB slot for the cable attachment.



Then again, I'm probably just pissed off because SanDisk (losers) won't provide drivers for my old ImageMate card reader! That means having to go to OS9 to get pics off my digital camera!
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by satchmo

    I know this is a bit far fetched, and maybe not practical, but damn it would be pretty convenient to have a built in card reader in every Mac.



    Not sure what the standard is, but I know there are 6 in 1 type adapters out there with one slot so you can pop in what ever type of media card you have. So what's wrong with these adapters? Well, nothing except the waste of a USB slot for the cable attachment.



    Then again, I'm probably just pissed off because SanDisk (losers) won't provide drivers for my old ImageMate card reader! That means having to go to OS9 to get pics off my digital camera!




    There are adapters that plug into the pccard slot. Thay are real cheapo. It might be woth a try, it is a solid standard.
  • Reply 2 of 25
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Can't you just use the camera itself as a card reader? When I download pics from my digital camera, I just connect the USB cable to the camera and it automatically opens iPhoto. No card reader needed.
  • Reply 3 of 25
    when transferring digipics via the usb cable, i find a lot of video noise being picked up. On the cable that came with my sony for example, there are these huge ferrite blocks to try to reduce this, but still the picture quality aint clean.



    My solution was to buy a Memorystick-pcCard reader for my titanium 15"....aparantly by going direct (by eliminating the usb cable) you get clearer images after the transfer.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    Quote:

    "....aparantly by going direct (by eliminating the usb cable) you get clearer images after the transfer.





    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
  • Reply 5 of 25
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fireants22

    ...huge ferrite blocks...



    What is this structure called:



    Code:




    Fe--Fe

    // \\\\

    Fe Fe

    \\ /

    Fe==Fe









    A ferrous wheel... get it? *geeky laughter + snort*
  • Reply 6 of 25
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hamish

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA



    Wow... a guy with 4 posts paying out a guy with over 100... and being justified about it!







    Barto
  • Reply 7 of 25
    There are a number of PC's that have multiple card formats built-into the computer. However, I believe they might have to license those formats, such as Memory Stick, CF, SD, etc. Given the fact that there are numerous 3rd parties creating such things, I'm not sure if Apple needs to.



    What I would love to see is an Apple keychain storage device! Imagine how amazing that would look. Knowing Apple, they'd probably make it a firewire device to burn the PC users. But it would still look nice.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    I want a way to transfer photos straight to my iPod or straight to the mac via Firewire - and not have to screw around with cards. That would add another layer of functionallity to the iPod.



    Chas
  • Reply 9 of 25
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,866member
    Hi guy;



    On my linux system I just mount my CF reader as a haddisk. Most of thses guys are configured as USB mass storage devices so can be read genericly. At least in the case of compact flash, its pretty stupid to consider anything less than compact flash as it seems to lead on all accounts.



    Thanks

    Dave



    Quote:

    Originally posted by satchmo

    I know this is a bit far fetched, and maybe not practical, but damn it would be pretty convenient to have a built in card reader in every Mac.



    Not sure what the standard is, but I know there are 6 in 1 type adapters out there with one slot so you can pop in what ever type of media card you have. So what's wrong with these adapters? Well, nothing except the waste of a USB slot for the cable attachment.



    Then again, I'm probably just pissed off because SanDisk (losers) won't provide drivers for my old ImageMate card reader! That means having to go to OS9 to get pics off my digital camera!




  • Reply 10 of 25
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fireants22

    when transferring digipics via the usb cable, i find a lot of video noise being picked up.



    Video noise? You sure that's not your parents watching pr0n?



    j/k, sorry.



    Seriously, it's a digital cable. There's not gonna be anything like "noise" in the traditional meaning. Image quality is less than perfect due to JPEG compression, but the deterioration should be hardly noticeable, AND:



    It won't make a single difference *how* you transfer the data to the computer!!!
  • Reply 11 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fireants22

    when transferring digipics via the usb cable, i find a lot of video noise being picked up.



    This is like those people who spent a fortune on devices that regulate and filter the mains signal before it goes into HiFi equipment and are convinced it makes the sound better.
  • Reply 12 of 25
    Quote:

    This is like those people who spent a fortune on devices that regulate and filter the mains signal before it goes into HiFi equipment and are convinced it makes the sound better.



    It can.
  • Reply 13 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jingo

    This is like those people who spent a fortune on devices that regulate and filter the mains signal before it goes into HiFi equipment and are convinced it makes the sound better.



    The only difference is that they are right (altough sane people can't really hear the difference). But the USB signal is *digital*, when interference occurs the protocol detects this and resends te corrupted data.

    At least, I think so.. otherwise a lot of USB hardware would have problems and a simple parity bit can be sufficient.
  • Reply 14 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    I too use a PC card reader for my PowerBook. Works great, but sometimes it takes forever to mount the card.





    Exactly -- this is what I must do with my camera, as OS X won't recognize it via FireWire (Kodak's too lazy to modify their drivers to let the older DSLRs be used with X). But once it does mount, the process is very speedy, especially if you use faster memory (I've even noticed difference in the camera -- deleting/browsing is extremely snappy now). Every day I look at that PowerBook and thank the lord I got it, or else the camera I got would be pretty much useless -- wish PC-card slots were put in more platforms (as far as both desktop and laptop). I think that would solve your problem.
  • Reply 15 of 25
    For those who don't know <I mention it alot> I have a "12 PB, I do quite a bit of work for Realtors. I don't have a digital camera so I don't have that USB cable. So I get them to bring their cameras over with shots of their houses. and 90% they have to come back when they Remember to bring that cable, I'd love to just fire that card in and save everyone a lot of time!

    besides.. wouldn't an internal Card reader be quicker than the camera cable combo?

    flick.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    You can get external USB flash card readers almost for free nowadays ($30 or so), and they support all the different standards out there (although the horrible Fuji/Olympus xD cards - which won't ever be supported in PDAs/phones etc unless Fuji/Olympus do their own - are not so widely supported).



    These readers are often much faster than the connection built in to cameras, but ultimately the speed up to now has normally been limited by the speed of the media. There are USB 2.0 readers now coming onto the market, but whether they are any faster will again basically be determined by when the media gets faster. Although buying one now would future proof you as the media does, inevitably, get faster.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    Quote:

    (although the horrible Fuji/Olympus xD cards - which won't ever be supported in PDAs/phones etc unless Fuji/Olympus do their own - are not so widely supported).



    I think there's a reason why they're called XD Picture cards. I've got an Oly camera that uses them. They're not so bad, just expensive. Although, I don't know why-- it's just the same damn memory in a different package.



    The 6-in-1 memory readers have been joined by 8-in-1 readers (one of the additional two formats is XD, dunno what the eighth is, unless it's something like Memory Stick Pro). Lexar has one that's about $30, and USB2.
  • Reply 18 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gamblor

    I think there's a reason why they're called XD Picture cards.



    In essence, that was the point I was making. xD cards have such limited application compared to the other formats out there, but they don't actually do the job they're being sold for any better.



    If you get a camera that takes, for example, SD/MM cards, you can use them in a camera exactly the same as you would xD cards, but you can also use them directly in many Palm and MS PDAs, and a few (but increasing) laptops, MP3 players, and cellphones.



    Thus you avoid having to get multiple different types of cards and can use the ones you have flexibly as the need determines. You can also easily do things like view and edit your images on your PDA, send images using your cellphone, and play MP3s on your MP3 player, PDA or cellphone, whichever is the most appropriate device for the moment.



    The only comparable format for flexibility is Sony's MemoryStick, but the problems with this are its proprietary nature, relative cost, and the fact that there are now three different versions with limited cross-compatibility.



    (Also CompactFlash will also continue to have valid application in professional or semi-professional uses for a number of reasons. I say that for completeness!)
  • Reply 19 of 25
    Quote:

    Thus you avoid having to get multiple different types of cards and can use the ones you have flexibly as the need determines. You can also easily do things like view and edit your images on your PDA, send images using your cellphone, and play MP3s on your MP3 player, PDA or cellphone, whichever is the most appropriate device for the moment.



    IME, that's not typically how people use memory cards, and it assumes a level of interoperability between devices that doesn't exist (yet). Typically, you'll buy cards for a specific device, and they'll only be used in that device. I've got a Palm, a Pocket PC, and a GPS that all use SD cards, and I've got cards for each of them, but I can think of no reason why I'd pop one of the cards out of one device and into another. Even if I wanted to do that, I'd have to dump data from the card in order to use it in another device.



    Say I had a camera that used SD cards, and I filled all of my available SD cards with pics. If I wanted to use the SD card in my GPS for pics, I'd have to dump all the maps off of it, which would make my GPS more or less worthless. Doesn't seem like a very good trade off.



    At this point we're way off topic. Just to make an on topic comment, I think adding a specific format of card reader would be a mistake, at least until the field gets narrowed down to a single card format. I've got a Toshiba notebook that has a SmartMedia slot, which at the time, seemed like a great idea. Now, I no longer use my old Oly camera that used SM cards, so it goes more or less unused. Using a PC Card adapter or USB reader is a better idea, for now.
  • Reply 20 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gamblor

    IME, that's not typically how people use memory cards, and it assumes a level of interoperability between devices that doesn't exist (yet). Typically, you'll buy cards for a specific device, and they'll only be used in that device. I've got a Palm, a Pocket PC, and a GPS that all use SD cards, and I've got cards for each of them, but I can think of no reason why I'd pop one of the cards out of one device and into another. Even if I wanted to do that, I'd have to dump data from the card in order to use it in another device.



    Say I had a camera that used SD cards, and I filled all of my available SD cards with pics. If I wanted to use the SD card in my GPS for pics, I'd have to dump all the maps off of it, which would make my GPS more or less worthless. Doesn't seem like a very good trade off.




    I don't think we're way off topic - maybe slightly off topic \. And I'm sure you weren't using that comment as a device to have the last word on this debate, were you!



    Just because you don't currently use the cards between devices now doesn't mean that you won't in future, or that other people don't want to now. Personally I use my Palm to preview photos and show them to people as it has a bigger and better screen than my camera - plus I don't have to always carry my camera around with me.



    I would also like a slot in my PowerBook to be able to download the photos directly to the hard disk, although this is not so necessary because of the existence of USB readers - it would just be neater.



    And because you can use the same cards between devices doesn't mean that you have to use the same card for everything (your reference to dumping maps off a card in order to be able to use that card elsewhere). What it does mean is that you can use the same card with the same data in multiple devices - which was what I was suggesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.