Are these any good

"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:v661v0pks26q7fvleer1ast55nbg2ev1om@4ax.com...
 > It has nothing to do with "wrong" or "reject". Sandisk
 > will sell memory on retail market and as a supplier. Their
 > retail sales rate < total production. I'd imagine they'd
 > rather not fool with retail sales at all.

The interesting thing with mine is that it had the sandisk stickers
underneath. I'd imagine if sandisk sold their products to another supplier
they would send them out blank or with that suppliers sticker already on
them. This makes me think that it must have failed some sort of sandisk
test. I can't imagine what that test would be, originally it was badged at
the same size and speed so it can't have failed in either of them. Maybe it
failed a reliability test or something?

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:01:37 +1100, "Michael C"
<mike.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:

 >"kony" <spam.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:v661v0pks26q7fvleer1ast55nbg2ev1om@4ax.com...
  >> It has nothing to do with "wrong" or "reject". Sandisk
  >> will sell memory on retail market and as a supplier. Their
  >> retail sales rate < total production. I'd imagine they'd
  >> rather not fool with retail sales at all.
 >
 >The interesting thing with mine is that it had the sandisk stickers
 >underneath.

It's interesting that they needed to divert stock packged
for retail to other channels due to underestimating
off-brand sales vs retail sales ratios?



 >I'd imagine if sandisk sold their products to another supplier
 >they would send them out blank or with that suppliers sticker already on
 >them.

I'd imagine that they don't put their stickers on any
modules that are defective in any way. What would be the
point of that?

On the other hand, want point is there in paying someone to
peel off stickers when another one would be put on top
anyway? I doubt they realized you'd be paranoid about this.


 >This makes me think that it must have failed some sort of sandisk
 >test.


Then return it... It's really not worth worrying about.

 > I can't imagine what that test would be, originally it was badged at
 >the same size and speed so it can't have failed in either of them. Maybe it
 >failed a reliability test or something?


It would be the
flash-market-plummeted-nobody-pays-retail-for-flash-anymore,
test.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

"kony" <spam.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:cho8v0la9n0qv2pvpveqkk0hc7c1j0n373@4ax.com...
 > It's interesting that they needed to divert stock packged
 > for retail to other channels due to underestimating
 > off-brand sales vs retail sales ratios?
 >
 > I'd imagine that they don't put their stickers on any
 > modules that are defective in any way. What would be the
 > point of that?
 >
 > On the other hand, want point is there in paying someone to
 > peel off stickers when another one would be put on top
 > anyway? I doubt they realized you'd be paranoid about this.

Do you have any proof of all this? I'm not disputing this but you'd really
need to work at sandisk to know.

 > Then return it... It's really not worth worrying about.

The one I've got works fine, I'm looking into buying an SD card now.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:42:47 +1100, "Michael C"
<mike.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

 >"kony" <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:cho8v0la9n0qv2pvpveqkk0hc7c1j0n373@4ax.com...
  >> It's interesting that they needed to divert stock packged
  >> for retail to other channels due to underestimating
  >> off-brand sales vs retail sales ratios?
  >>
  >> I'd imagine that they don't put their stickers on any
  >> modules that are defective in any way. What would be the
  >> point of that?
  >>
  >> On the other hand, want point is there in paying someone to
  >> peel off stickers when another one would be put on top
  >> anyway? I doubt they realized you'd be paranoid about this.
 >
 >Do you have any proof of all this? I'm not disputing this but you'd really
 >need to work at sandisk to know.

I don't think i'd need to work there to know that they don't
put product labels on till after they're tested, that's
pretty standard. Nobody wants their company name on a
product that's defective.


 >
  >> Then return it... It's really not worth worrying about.
 >
 >The one I've got works fine, I'm looking into buying an SD card now.
 >
 >Michael

I think you'll find that just about any off-brand flash has
another company's markings (product codes) inked on even if
there isn't a retail sticker. Are you going to go through
all this doubt every time you buy flash?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:lfeav09nq1o8uvj3d03vbbgdfuv73a2nn2@4ax.com...
 > I don't think i'd need to work there to know that they don't
 > put product labels on till after they're tested, that's
 > pretty standard. Nobody wants their company name on a
 > product that's defective.

But you're only guessing I presume. There could be many reasons why they are
tested after they get the label.

 > I think you'll find that just about any off-brand flash has
 > another company's markings (product codes) inked on even if
 > there isn't a retail sticker. Are you going to go through
 > all this doubt every time you buy flash?

If there is some substance behind this doubt then yes. If I was after a CPU
and I could get a SPINTEL (TM) cpu much cheaper that was really just a
rebadged INTEL then I'd be very suspisious. It makes perfect sense for intel
to give out all of their crap to SPINTEL.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:01:47 +1100, "Michael C"
<mike.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:

 >"kony" <spam.TakeThisOut@spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:lfeav09nq1o8uvj3d03vbbgdfuv73a2nn2@4ax.com...
  >> I don't think i'd need to work there to know that they don't
  >> put product labels on till after they're tested, that's
  >> pretty standard. Nobody wants their company name on a
  >> product that's defective.
 >
 >But you're only guessing I presume. There could be many reasons why they are
 >tested after they get the label.

It would be less of a guess than you're making because
labeling is the final step in manufacturing.

I don't know how to kindly put it, but you're simply not
GETTING it. They are not defective, you're just paranoid.


 >
  >> I think you'll find that just about any off-brand flash has
  >> another company's markings (product codes) inked on even if
  >> there isn't a retail sticker. Are you going to go through
  >> all this doubt every time you buy flash?
 >
 >If there is some substance behind this doubt then yes. If I was after a CPU
 >and I could get a SPINTEL (TM) cpu much cheaper that was really just a
 >rebadged INTEL then I'd be very suspisious. It makes perfect sense for intel
 >to give out all of their crap to SPINTEL.
 >

There is no substance behind your doubt. It is well known
that memory markets fluctuate like crazy with manufacturers
hoaring production and liquidating surplus too.

Possibly the part you don't grasp is that there is nothing
"good" about Sandisk regular cards relative to any other
generic. Flash memory quality is based upon it's speed and
density as that applies to total capacity. Your ramblings
about defects are unfounded since you can't even pinpoint
anything wrong with it's function.

Further, it does NOT make perfect sense for intel to "give
out" all of their crap to anyone. They destroy them. It
would be even more ridiculous for them to find them
defective, THEN put their brand-name label on, and THEN sell
them to someone.

I suppose the bottom line is you're not familiar with flash
memory market. It is a spot-based market, prices fluctuate
wildly. You jump to conclusions about seeing a Sandisk
label where there is no evidence to believe anything in
particular about it. Let me make it clear-

IF IT WERE DEFECTIVE, THE ABSOLUTE LAST THING YOU WOULD SEE
ON IT IS A SANDISK LABEL. The label in itself is evidence
that it passed their tests.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:sj4bv0pdb7n014chshavecur7shq3vmi2b@4ax.com...
 > I don't know how to kindly put it, but you're simply not
 > GETTING it. They are not defective, you're just paranoid.

No need to be rude. It is you who is not getting it. You have zero proof and
are just guessing and have nothing to back up your claims. I did present my
ideas as "what I've heard" because I don't know for sure but you are
presenting your ideas as fact when you don't know for sure either.

 > There is no substance behind your doubt. It is well known
 > that memory markets fluctuate like crazy with manufacturers
 > hoaring production and liquidating surplus too.

Well known? So you are going by what people have told you? It is well know
that lower quality products go to different brands all the time. Go to a no
name supermarket and all the reject apples from the brand name supermarket
are there. All the CCDs in cheapo video cameras are the rejects from
high-end cameras.

 > IF IT WERE DEFECTIVE, THE ABSOLUTE LAST THING YOU WOULD SEE
 > ON IT IS A SANDISK LABEL. The label in itself is evidence
 > that it passed their tests.

It might not be outright defective. It could just be lower quality in some
way that I don't know about. If it had a few dodgy bits I'd never know
because it largely stores pics. Also the new one doesn't have a sandisk
label underneath.

GIMME SOME PROOF!!!! and then I might believe you. Otherwise you're blowing
hot air and getting angry because I won't accept it as fact.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:13:30 +1100, "Michael C"
<mike.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

 >"kony" <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:sj4bv0pdb7n014chshavecur7shq3vmi2b@4ax.com...
  >> I don't know how to kindly put it, but you're simply not
  >> GETTING it. They are not defective, you're just paranoid.
 >
 >No need to be rude. It is you who is not getting it. You have zero proof and
 >are just guessing and have nothing to back up your claims. I did present my
 >ideas as "what I've heard" because I don't know for sure but you are
 >presenting your ideas as fact when you don't know for sure either.

"What you've heard"?
Let's hear it from the horse's mouth then, who claims this?

You might claim "I heard someone say that mine is filled
with swiss chesses". I could counter, "no it's not".
Indeed, that's my opinion, i have no facts to confirm you
have not a cheese-filled flash card.


 >
  >> There is no substance behind your doubt. It is well known
  >> that memory markets fluctuate like crazy with manufacturers
  >> hoaring production and liquidating surplus too.
 >
 >Well known? So you are going by what people have told you?

Do you live in a vacuume?
It's well known to anyone who shops the memory market
regularly.

 > It is well know
 >that lower quality products go to different brands all the time. Go to a no
 >name supermarket and all the reject apples from the brand name supermarket
 >are there. All the CCDs in cheapo video cameras are the rejects from
 >high-end cameras.

Actually, no, but that's not directly comparible even if it
were true.

To repeat, there is nothing particularly "quality" about
Sandisk over any other flash memory. They DO sell higher
speed grades, which some might call higher quality due to
this desirable feature, but that's pretty simple criteria.
If your card is rated at (N)X speed but can't perform that
fast, you ought to be returning it. If you find you can't
write or read the whole thing without errors, again it
should be returned. Otherwise, you're just paranoid.


 >
  >> IF IT WERE DEFECTIVE, THE ABSOLUTE LAST THING YOU WOULD SEE
  >> ON IT IS A SANDISK LABEL. The label in itself is evidence
  >> that it passed their tests.
 >
 >It might not be outright defective. It could just be lower quality in some
 >way that I don't know about. If it had a few dodgy bits I'd never know
 >because it largely stores pics. Also the new one doesn't have a sandisk
 >label underneath.

Return it.
You are not able to appreciate a bargain and should pay full
retail for a Sandisk card, never knowing there is no
difference.

 >
 >GIMME SOME PROOF!!!! and then I might believe you. Otherwise you're blowing
 >hot air and getting angry because I won't accept it as fact.

Prove what? Prove it isn't defective?
Prove that everyone else isn't paranoid?
Prove that companies don't risk corporate image by putting
labels on products already tested as defective?
Prove that Sandisk had excess inventory that had labels?
It seems you already have all the proof right there in front
of you.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:5tcbv05dblselc9mgvrr2o5q2nnb4on85u@4ax.com...
 > "What you've heard"?
 > Let's hear it from the horse's mouth then, who claims this?

I've heard this from several people in the industry, just like you.

 > You might claim "I heard someone say that mine is filled
 > with swiss chesses". I could counter, "no it's not".
 > Indeed, that's my opinion, i have no facts to confirm you
 > have not a cheese-filled flash card.

Now you are just being stupid.

 > Do you live in a vacuume?
 > It's well known to anyone who shops the memory market
 > regularly.

So you've heard it from a few people?

 > Actually, no, but that's not directly comparible even if it
 > were true.

It is directly comparable.

 > To repeat, there is nothing particularly "quality" about
 > Sandisk over any other flash memory. They DO sell higher
 > speed grades, which some might call higher quality due to
 > this desirable feature, but that's pretty simple criteria.
 > If your card is rated at (N)X speed but can't perform that
 > fast, you ought to be returning it. If you find you can't
 > write or read the whole thing without errors, again it
 > should be returned. Otherwise, you're just paranoid.

There would be many different highly technical quality issues that you or i
wouldn't know the details of. To say that the only quality is speed shows
your ignorance.

 > Prove what? Prove it isn't defective?
 > Prove that everyone else isn't paranoid?
 > Prove that companies don't risk corporate image by putting
 > labels on products already tested as defective?

Defective is a gray area. Maybe they run a test that shows it will have a
shorter life span, or will use more power, or who knows what.

 > Prove that Sandisk had excess inventory that had labels?
 > It seems you already have all the proof right there in front
 > of you.

No, I have you expressing your opinion and expecting me to accept it as
proof. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you don't have proof, which
you don't. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?

Are you really so nieve to think that this sort of thing isn't common
practice in industry?

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:34:05 +1100, "Michael C"
<mike.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

 >"kony" <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:5tcbv05dblselc9mgvrr2o5q2nnb4on85u@4ax.com...
  >> "What you've heard"?
  >> Let's hear it from the horse's mouth then, who claims this?
 >
 >I've heard this from several people in the industry, just like you.
 >

Then return it.

Peel all the labels off of everything you own just to be
sure there's nothing underneath. Wonder about everything
you have which DOESN'T have a label underneath too, LOL.

You are deluded and I'm apathetic about it.
Sandisk does not slap their labels on defective memory then
resell it. End of story.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

"kony" <spam DeleteThis @spam.com> wrote in message
news:ebmbv0ppdcfhenkqgpt2tdnqjeo0ib8g4g@4ax.com...
 > Then return it.
 >
 > Peel all the labels off of everything you own just to be
 > sure there's nothing underneath. Wonder about everything
 > you have which DOESN'T have a label underneath too, LOL.
 >
 > You are deluded and I'm apathetic about it.
 > Sandisk does not slap their labels on defective memory then
 > resell it. End of story.

Well if you say so then that's good enough for me. lol. Fact is you don't
have a clue what sandisk do.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

"kony" <spam.DeleteThis@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ebmbv0ppdcfhenkqgpt2tdnqjeo0ib8g4g@4ax.com...
 > Then return it.
 >
 > Peel all the labels off of everything you own just to be
 > sure there's nothing underneath. Wonder about everything
 > you have which DOESN'T have a label underneath too, LOL.
 >
 > You are deluded and I'm apathetic about it.
 > Sandisk does not slap their labels on defective memory then
 > resell it. End of story.

Why is it so inconceivable to your small brain that a company would sell off
lower quality stock to another company? Yes the one I had probably was not
in that category because it had the sandisk label on it but I wasn't talking
about just the one I have. Somehow you seem to think that because my one
single CF card had a sandisk label on it that that means they never do it.

Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good 

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:22:17 +1100, "Michael C"
<mike.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote:

 >"kony" <spam.RemoveThis@spam.com> wrote in message
 >news:ebmbv0ppdcfhenkqgpt2tdnqjeo0ib8g4g@4ax.com...
  >> Then return it.
  >>
  >> Peel all the labels off of everything you own just to be
  >> sure there's nothing underneath. Wonder about everything
  >> you have which DOESN'T have a label underneath too, LOL.
  >>
  >> You are deluded and I'm apathetic about it.
  >> Sandisk does not slap their labels on defective memory then
  >> resell it. End of story.
 >
 >Why is it so inconceivable to your small brain that a company would sell off
 >lower quality stock to another company? Yes the one I had probably was not
 >in that category because it had the sandisk label on it but I wasn't talking
 >about just the one I have. Somehow you seem to think that because my one
 >single CF card had a sandisk label on it that that means they never do it.
 >
 >Michael
 >

You are deluded and I'm apathetic about it.
Sandisk does not slap their labels on defective memory then
resell it. End of story.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Are these any good