Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best flash drive brand?
- Thread starter TH55
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seems your criterion for choice is simply the cheapest brands available. I'd pick the Sandisk over PNY any day of the week, but IMHO you're better off with Intel, Samsung or Crucial SSDs. Intel is the dearest. I've got an Intel 730 I use to backup my main onboard PCIe SSD. I've also got Samsung 850 EVO SSDs I'm using in RAID0 as a disk for processing video. Both are excellent choices and I would recommend both.
I wouldn't touch PNY with a bargepole because they have inferior flash memory and controllers.
I wouldn't touch PNY with a bargepole because they have inferior flash memory and controllers.
I think OP was asking about USB flash drives. SSDs are a whole other device in many ways.
Flash drives are, IMHO, disposable devices. so I also tend to "go cheap" buying a few at a time.
All flash drives that I have used tend to be the quickest kind of storage to deteriorate to the point of being unreliable, usually after multiple erases. Work well enough for "first-time" copies.
For example, when I create a bootable OS X installer, I use a flash drive fresh out of the pack. Some that I have used for that purpose have been erased multiple times, and each copy process gets slower and slower.
All that being said, I usually have two in my pocket - one is a SanDisk, with multiple partitions for various OS X installs.
The other is a Kingston, which continues to work after 4 years. It has almost all OS X system updaters, from Tiger to Yosemite, and the main app updaters that I deal with most every day, such as MS Office, a few video converters, etc. I like to have everything in one place...
I get what suits my needs. I used to like OCZ, but had too many sudden failures. There's too many others to choose from.
I like cheap, and look for the good bargains during back-to-school sales. 32GB SanDisk for 6 bucks - who woulda thunk that would happen
Flash drives are, IMHO, disposable devices. so I also tend to "go cheap" buying a few at a time.
All flash drives that I have used tend to be the quickest kind of storage to deteriorate to the point of being unreliable, usually after multiple erases. Work well enough for "first-time" copies.
For example, when I create a bootable OS X installer, I use a flash drive fresh out of the pack. Some that I have used for that purpose have been erased multiple times, and each copy process gets slower and slower.
All that being said, I usually have two in my pocket - one is a SanDisk, with multiple partitions for various OS X installs.
The other is a Kingston, which continues to work after 4 years. It has almost all OS X system updaters, from Tiger to Yosemite, and the main app updaters that I deal with most every day, such as MS Office, a few video converters, etc. I like to have everything in one place...
I get what suits my needs. I used to like OCZ, but had too many sudden failures. There's too many others to choose from.
I like cheap, and look for the good bargains during back-to-school sales. 32GB SanDisk for 6 bucks - who woulda thunk that would happen
Here is a pretty good overview of alternatives along with a recommendation. I have the Sandisk mentioned in that article and it works well and has good speeds.
Thanks, yeah I should've specified USB. I edited my OP, so I should definitely stay away from PNY? Are turbo or 3.0 flash drives that much quicker?I think OP was asking about USB flash drives. SSDs are a whole other device in many ways.
Flash drives are, IMHO, disposable devices. so I also tend to "go cheap" buying a few at a time.
All flash drives that I have used tend to be the quickest kind of storage to deteriorate to the point of being unreliable, usually after multiple erases. Work well enough for "first-time" copies.
For example, when I create a bootable OS X installer, I use a flash drive fresh out of the pack. Some that I have used for that purpose have been erased multiple times, and each copy process gets slower and slower.
All that being said, I usually have two in my pocket - one is a SanDisk, with multiple partitions for various OS X installs.
The other is a Kingston, which continues to work after 4 years. It has almost all OS X system updaters, from Tiger to Yosemite, and the main app updaters that I deal with most every day, such as MS Office, a few video converters, etc. I like to have everything in one place...
I get what suits my needs. I used to like OCZ, but had too many sudden failures. There's too many others to choose from.
I like cheap, and look for the good bargains during back-to-school sales. 32GB SanDisk for 6 bucks - who woulda thunk that would happen
Everything seems great but some of the reviews say it is incompatible w Windows and does not show up as a removable flash drive when connected. Is this true?
The reviews I read were on Amazon where it is $32 for 64GB! http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-Flash-Drive-SDCZ80-064G-G46/dp/B00DZPUOUI
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I'd suggest you ask about Windows compatibility issues in a Windows forum if you need answers about that.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
This drive is hands down the best drive out there. The USB 3.0 Speeds are just phenomenal. I have had 3 of these and will continue to buy them when needed.
SOME of the older versions of that drive were using a different controller, they still worked perfectly fine in Windows but they showed up as an internal drive. It doesnt make to big of a difference in the end.
All new ones should show up as a removable USB though as there are new restrictions that disallow what it was doing from Windows.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Awesome, thanks. Will I benefit from these speeds if I have USB 2.0 ports? I'm not sure if that's what I have but my computer is 10 years old. When I bought it it was a top of the line loaded Dell.
Unfortunately not, you will just get the max speed your ports can do in that case which is not necessarily true for all 2.0 drives. But even then they are solid drives.
If it was made after 2000, it likely has USB 2.0. Do you know what processor is has?
The extreme will still likely give you the best speeds on 2.0 but if you aren't to worried about speed, any 2.0 drive will work fine.
If the difference is less than $10, I would go for the Extreme. I see it here for $32. I have personally bought one for as low as $20 as well.
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extre...d=1442362290&sr=8-8&keywords=usb+sandisk+64gb
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Is the Extreme still going to be significantly faster than standard drives even on a 2.0 port?
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
If you connect a USB 3.0 device to a USB 2.0 bus, that device downclocks to USB 2.0
It could (maybe) test faster, perhaps because of some difference in the storage controller on the device, but not in any significant way. It cannot go faster than USB 2 speeds while connected to a USB 2 port.
It could (maybe) test faster, perhaps because of some difference in the storage controller on the device, but not in any significant way. It cannot go faster than USB 2 speeds while connected to a USB 2 port.
No, the Extreme won't be "much faster" on a USB 2.0 bus.
It _might_ be measurably faster, but probably not noticeably faster, on a USB 2.0 bus (because it is a good quality drive)
The Extreme is a stable, fast drive. It is a USB 3.0 device.
If you connect it to a USB 2.0 bus, then it will be slower.
It will not work faster than the USB 2.0 bus allows.
It will be MUCH faster when connected to a USB 3.0 bus.
The computer has to provide support for a USB 3.0 bus before you get the faster speeds.
If you want to make sure the Extreme is "much faster" - then you need a computer that provides USB 3 ports.
It _might_ be measurably faster, but probably not noticeably faster, on a USB 2.0 bus (because it is a good quality drive)
The Extreme is a stable, fast drive. It is a USB 3.0 device.
If you connect it to a USB 2.0 bus, then it will be slower.
It will not work faster than the USB 2.0 bus allows.
It will be MUCH faster when connected to a USB 3.0 bus.
The computer has to provide support for a USB 3.0 bus before you get the faster speeds.
If you want to make sure the Extreme is "much faster" - then you need a computer that provides USB 3 ports.
Cool, thanks. Do you think 64 GB will be enough to store BluRay quality movies on, or will I soon be wanting 128?
After a quick search - looks like the typical blu-ray DVD will rip to between 25 and 35 GB.
You can then re-encode that movie to something smaller, 1080p or 720p, etc - but you lose image quality.
If that's your main goal - to keep blu ray movies on a flash drive, then IMHO, it's not really practical.
I would always use a hard drive, or even better, SSD, in an external USB 3.0 enclosure.
1 TB of storage will be MUCH better, don't you think?
You can then re-encode that movie to something smaller, 1080p or 720p, etc - but you lose image quality.
If that's your main goal - to keep blu ray movies on a flash drive, then IMHO, it's not really practical.
I would always use a hard drive, or even better, SSD, in an external USB 3.0 enclosure.
1 TB of storage will be MUCH better, don't you think?
Looks like fairly good information here - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=216076
So, a really crappy 1080p (2 Hour movie) might be 2 GB.
To get decent quality, with no obvious artifacts - in other words, a decent watchable movie, the movie (1080p) would need at least 4 to 7 GB.
Blu ray quality - at least triple that amount - at least according to the various sites that I searched through.
If you don't care about the video quality, then you can re-encode with higher compression settings, and make the file a more manageable size.
Just don't ask someone else to watch it with you
So, a really crappy 1080p (2 Hour movie) might be 2 GB.
To get decent quality, with no obvious artifacts - in other words, a decent watchable movie, the movie (1080p) would need at least 4 to 7 GB.
Blu ray quality - at least triple that amount - at least according to the various sites that I searched through.
If you don't care about the video quality, then you can re-encode with higher compression settings, and make the file a more manageable size.
Just don't ask someone else to watch it with you
Damn. I didn't know this. So BluRay is the best format by a long shot?Looks like fairly good information here - http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=216076
So, a really crappy 1080p (2 Hour movie) might be 2 GB.
To get decent quality, with no obvious artifacts - in other words, a decent watchable movie, the movie (1080p) would need at least 4 to 7 GB.
Blu ray quality - at least triple that amount - at least according to the various sites that I searched through.
If you don't care about the video quality, then you can re-encode with higher compression settings, and make the file a more manageable size.
Just don't ask someone else to watch it with you