Print 24 comment(s) - last by Jeff7181.. on Dec 13 at 7:05 PM

Corsair's Flash Voyager sizes up

Corsair today announced the latest addition to its Flash Voyager line of USB drives. The latest Flash Voyager drive arrives in a new 16GB size while retaining the portable form factor of smaller drives. An all-rubber housing surrounds the Flash Voyager 16GB USB drive and allows it to be somewhat water-resistant.  Corsair equips the Flash Voyager with a USB 2.0 interface for speedy transfers up to 22MB/s reads and 7MB/s writes.

With the massive 16GB storage space the Flash Voyager can store plenty of high definition video and other multimedia content. Corsair’s Director of Product Marketing, Richard Hashim claims “As high definition content becomes more prevalent and that consumers demand portability of their favorite videos, pictures and applications, the need for an ultra high capacity drive increases. With a 16GB drive, you can put the entire series of three Lord of the Rings movies, an operating system, chat programs, photo editing software and still have storage space available for more,”

 Other notable features of the Flash Voyager include 8 bit ECC technology to prolong product reliability and a bundled software encryption application. The bundled encryption application takes advantage of 256bit AES encryption technology.

Expect immediate availability of the Corsair Flash Voyager 16GB flash drive. MSRP pricing of the Flash Voyager 16GB has been set at $299 USD.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Lifted on 12/12/2006 8:43:27 PM , Rating: 3
Assuming the peak transfer rate of 7MB/s, it's going to take ~40 minutes to fill this thing up? No thanks. My current 4GB drive takes long enough, 40 minutes is not so convenient anymore.

RE: Slow?
By AnotherGuy on 12/12/2006 8:52:38 PM , Rating: 1
dude u dont have to fill it up... duh

RE: Slow?
By Lifted on 12/13/2006 12:49:19 AM , Rating: 4
Then why pay $300 for 16GB if you're not going to use it?

My point was that although the space is there, the speed is not. For $100 you can get a 60GB external 2.5" USB HDD. I have a few of these and they are much faster than 7MB/s, which I doubt you'll see anyway as real world use is probably more like 5 - 6MB/s based on all the other flash drives out there.

I just don't see much of market for a device with this much storage capacity that takes ages to fill and costs 3x as much as a faster 2.5" hdd with 4x the storage space. When they get to writing at 20MB/s and higher, then I think people will be more willing to shell out the money for these, but $300 is too much for the convenice of flash when the speed erodes most of that convenience when dealing with such large amounts of data.

RE: Slow?
By mindless1 on 12/13/2006 5:28:30 AM , Rating: 3
- Many can write faster than 5-6MB/s now.

- No way I'm lugging around a 2.5" HDD, larger and heavier

- Many can read faster than your 2.5" solution (over USB)

- Mechanical HDD is too fragile for many scenarios

- Granted the price on this is too high but you always have the alternative of a faster, lower cost and more sexy thumbdrive instead.

RE: Slow?
By JeffDM on 12/13/2006 8:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
They say sustained speed in the press release. Flash doesn't have nearly the latency issues as a hard drive.

I don't think it's about holding a 16GB file, it's about holding 16GB of files, so you can carrry more of your files in a more compact case so it's more readily accessible. Most files won't be anywhere nearly that large.

RE: Slow?
By masher2 on 12/12/2006 9:13:58 PM , Rating: 1
> "Slow. Assuming the peak transfer rate of 7MB/s, it's going to take ~40 minutes to fill this thing up? No thanks. My current 4GB drive takes long enough..."

Err, assuming you need to put 16GB onto flash storage in the first place, doing so on one single device will be faster than having to split it into 4GB chunks, then swap in four different devices and do four separate copies. And if you have less than 4GB to copy, this will be no slower than your existing stick.

RE: Slow?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/13/2006 1:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think he brings up a valid point in regards to the tranfer rate. What is the point of having 16GB available if you're most likely not going to use it, or have difficulty in using it. Unless you're filling this thing with porn, or other media files, then you have use for the space. (Archiving files would be another excellent use, but in that scenario you don't care about transfer rate.) Of course the issue to consider then is, if you have need of the space to begin with, chances are you have already addressed the space issue via a portable HD.

RE: Slow?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 12/13/2006 9:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
I think the other poster meant that most people would not be writing data in 16gb chunks to this drive, not that one shouldn't ustilize all it's space.

I love how posters on here assume since they do not have a use for a particular product, no one else must either. There are plenty of useful reasons to have one of these drives that have nothing to do with stealing movies or porn.

RE: Slow?
By Jeff7181 on 12/13/2006 7:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely... for example... I have 8-9 GB of data files I use for school. They include several virtual machines, programs/source code, code samples, archived assignments from previous classes, books in PDF format. I only have a 512 MB flash drive, so I have to keep all that on my laptop, and get my laptop out if I need any of it.

RE: Slow?
By Goi on 12/13/2006 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's a valid point, but I think the point is also that you're not always gonna be accessing ALL the info. The working set at any point in time is probably going to be a small fraction of it.

"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki