This image is the top of the content box. Unfortunately, there is no information-based reason for this div to be here. It's just here for design reasons. Sorry.
Home Forums Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Welcome to the misticriver forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 01:37 AM
Mistic Surveyor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 126
UMS vs IMM transfer speed

What are your experiences with UMS vs IMM as far as file transfer speed?

I recently went back to using the IMM firmware and the speed increase is absolutely amazing - I can put 250Mb worth of music onto the player in 5 minutes. Using UMS it would take 12-15 minutes. As far as I'm concerned the speed increase (and 320kbps recording limit) outweigh the lack of USB drive flexibility.

No real reason for this post, I was just happy about it!
__________________
iFP-390T / Mandrake Linux 9.2 / Lame 3.92 -V8 --vbr-new
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Newbie Floating Down The Mistic River
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 35
I agree with you totally. Over the past few months I have waited for a Full Recording UMS version of the firmware, but so far no dice. I have kinda given up hope and went back to the IMM. I can definetly say that the speed increase is great, and that the full recording is so nice to have.
UMS doesn't really have much of a point anymore, unless you have to use it, since the newer manager versions are giving more freedom, by letting you rename and delete and move files that are already on the player.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 11:58 AM
sweetspot's Avatar
sweetspot web version 1.?
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 40 47 73 58
Posts: 3,498
Send a message via AIM to sweetspot Send a message via MSN to sweetspot Send a message via Yahoo to sweetspot
Interesting. I got the iFP 790 (which I have yet to review), and compared to the iHP 120's UMS transfer speeds, the IMM transfer speed seems MUCH slower. Supposedly, the 790 is a USB 2.0 port, but it seems more like 1.1 speeds. Can't explain why. I'll have to investigate when I do the review.
__________________
I'm IN....
I'm out.
I'iiiiiiiiiim IN....
AAAaaaand I'm out.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 07:20 PM
Mistic Surveyor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 126
Current flash based players can't compare to HD based players, because the flash memory simply can't be written to fast enough. I think USB2 flash players are meant to be 3 times faster than USB1.1 players, but still far slower than an iHP120
__________________
iFP-390T / Mandrake Linux 9.2 / Lame 3.92 -V8 --vbr-new
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Newbie Floating Down The Mistic River
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 36
Quote:
because the flash memory simply can't be written to fast enough
I don't know about that, I have a USB 2.0 flash drive and I just transfered 185Mb worth of music in 40sec to it, so that makes about 4.6 MB/s (write). My IHP-120 used to transfer 3.9 GB in about 13 minutes (writing) so that is about 5.1 MB/s . Pretty close if you ask me. Maybe iRiver does not use the best of hardware after all? Or maybe it's the software?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 09:46 PM
Mistic Surveyor
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 126
I'm happy to stand corrected then wealas. I was pretty sure that I read somewhere about a USB2 flashcard reader that was only 3 or so times faster than USB1.1. Maybe it depends on the memory or other hardware.
__________________
iFP-390T / Mandrake Linux 9.2 / Lame 3.92 -V8 --vbr-new
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old May 19th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Newbie Floating Down The Mistic River
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 36
Here is a link to a review of my USB flash drive (nifty little thing) that says it goes up to 7 MB/s according to some benchmark. If only the 7xx series could do that in UMS......
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dateline: July 13, 2004 H340 Exclusive Photos!! jeff Current & Upcoming iriver Products 97 June 9th, 2005 02:24 PM
Playback Speed KingGhidrah Firmware/Software/3rd Party Support 6 September 4th, 2004 01:04 PM
Transfer speed to H140 daveb975 iriver H1xx Series 9 June 28th, 2004 07:06 AM
New member - question re : file transfer roadrunner iriver H1xx Series 5 June 10th, 2004 05:49 AM
USB 2.0 transfer speed info., in music transfer to the iHP Mike iriver H1xx Series 11 March 19th, 2004 05:08 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
This image is the bottom of the content box. Unfortunately, there is no information-based reason for this div to be here. It's just here for design reasons. Sorry.