Kingston Digital Ships First 256GB USB Flash Drive in the U.S.

[btarunr]

Kingston Digital, Inc., the Flash memory affiliate of Kingston Technology Company, Inc., the independent world leader in memory products, today announced the release of DataTraveler 310, the first 256GB USB Flash drive in the United States. The DataTraveler 310 replaces the 256GB DataTraveler 300, released in July 2009 to the Asia/Pacific and Europe, Middle East and Africa regions.

"We saw an opportunity to push the capacity envelope for USB Flash drives in the marketplace. Customer feedback and our research determined that this is a great solution for designers, engineers and architects who have a need to easily store and transport large data files," said Andrew Ewing, USB business manager, Kingston. "For the enthusiast who wants easy access to their full media library, the DataTraveler 310 can store up to 365 CDs, 54 DVDs or 51,000 images*. This device makes an entire collection of data easily portable."



The DataTraveler 310 features Password Traveler software, which allows the user to create and access a password-protected privacy zone. The secure area of the drive can account for up to 90 percent of the drive's capacity and does not require administrator rights.

The DataTraveler 310 has a protective cap that snaps onto the back for the drive for convenient storage when not in use. This drive is available only in 256GB and is backed by a five-year warranty and 24/7 tech support.

DataTraveler 310 Product Features and Specifications:

• Capacity**: 256 GB
• Fast***: data transfer rates of 25MB/sec. read and 12MB/sec. write
• Safeguarded: includes Password Traveler
• Convenient: does not require Administrator rights to access the Privacy Zone
• Dimensions: 2.90" x 0.87" x 0.63" (73.70mm x 22.20mm x 16.10mm)
• Operating Temperature: 32°F to 140° F (0°C to 60° C)
• Storage Temperature: -4°C to 185°F (-20°C to 85° C)
• Simple: just plug into a USB port
• Practical: loop supports most key rings
• Guaranteed: five-year warranty

* Storage listings based on Kingston testing, individual results may vary.
** Some of the listed capacity is used for formatting and other functions and thus is not available for data storage.
*** Speed may vary due to host hardware, software and usage.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[BazookaJoe]

25 / 12?

On 256GB?!?! USB3 or GTFO!

 

[TheLostSwede]

Indeed, what's the point of this? At those speeds it'll take a month to copy all that data onto it...

 

[HeroPrinny]

IT would be pretty handy but I'm betting this thing is formatted in the fat32 file-system, making not only slow as heck to fill but really annoying to fill. USB 3.0 would have been a really nice feature to have on a memory stick this size.

 

[a_ump]

yea for real, they shoulda gone with 3.0 specs with 400mb/s transfers.

 

[btarunr]

Indeed, what's the point of this? At those speeds it'll take a month to copy all that data onto it...

The idea is not to buy it and dump 256 GB of stuff right away. It is to pile up stuff by regular use, over a period of time and "never" run out of space. Now I have a ton of stuff on my 8 GB disk. I didn't dump all that stuff the moment I bought it.

 

[a_ump]

i suppose it'd be good for backing up data. "just incase" situation. still though, 3.0 spec is well known and set in stone, why not make it with 3.0 specs and make it a hella better product.

 

[Roph]

Probably to keep the already high cost as low as possible.

I'm curious what this looks like when taken apart

 

[CharlO]

Yeap, wonder about filling a Pen for 6 hours then getting it off for 3... And also almost sure is more expensive than a HDD.

 

[OneCool]

This would be good for storing hard drive images.


Someone buy me one

 

[Mussels]

This would be good for storing hard drive images.


Someone buy me one

it would be very slooooooooow for storing those images.

 

[Polarman]

I have a 16GB usb stick and it does take time to fill. I'm tring to imagine how long it would take to fill this thing up.

 

[Mussels]

I have a 16GB usb stick and it does take time to fill. I'm tring to imagine how long it would take to fill this thing up.

start the transfer before you go to work.

 

[Disparia]

$1108!? That doesn't look like an ivory outer casing and cursed Mayan gold contacts.

But really, I'll just carry around an SSD. Tranfer little things, transfer large things, not a problem.

 

[BazookaJoe]

The idea is not to buy it and dump 256 GB of stuff right away. It is to pile up stuff by regular use, over a period of time and "never" run out of space. Now I have a ton of stuff on my 8 GB disk. I didn't dump all that stuff the moment I bought it.

Love your work btarunr, but this time I HAVE to disagree with you.

At 256GB there is no debate what-so-ever that this device is intended to carry large amounts of data.

In fact, your defense opens a much more terrifying problem, if it only hits 12 writing sequential LARGE files, how bad will it perform if you where actually using it to store hundreds of thousands of small files?

Even if you where only copying a portion of the drives size in files, 40, or 50 gigs transferred to this drive wouldn't even be a quarter of it's capacity and would still be an extremely painful process.

25 / 12 is not only virtually unusable, but bordering on flat out incompetent in this day and age where even the cheapest of common flash devices are starting to hit 35 / 25. We have to ASSUME that this drive in fact uses multiple memory chips , witch taken any reasonable design philosophy, should in fact open an excellent opportunity to make this drive note-ably faster than standard single chip devices, by using some form of internal "raid".

I'm sorry but, in my opinion, there is no validating argument for a 256GB device that (assuming claims correctly) can only do 25 / 12 :\

Unless it hits the shelf at $20.. then I'll take 4...

 

[DirectorC]

It would take 6 minutes to copy a DVD5 image to the drive.

That's not so bad. Quitcherbitchin.

 

[Mussels]

It would take 6 minutes to copy a DVD5 image to the drive.

That's not so bad. Quitcherbitchin.

with this size drive, people would use blu ray images - or tens of DVD images.

 

[DirectorC]

with this size drive, people would use blu ray images - or tens of DVD images.

What's so bad either way about setting the file transfers to go and just waiting it out?

 

[Mussels]

What's so bad either way about setting the file transfers to go and just waiting it out?

the fact that a drive at 1/10th the price could do it in half the time?

 

[DirectorC]

the fact that a drive at 1/10th the price could do it in half the time?

But the drive you speak of doesn't fit in a jean's third pocket correct?

 

[BazookaJoe]

the fact that a drive at 1/10th the price could do it in half the time?

That's kinda my whole point

 

[Wile E]

But the drive you speak of doesn't fit in a jean's third pocket correct?

Sure it does.

I agree with the others that this product is fail. Transfer speeds are far too low for that capacity. I have a 16GB Patriot Xporter XT, and copying the contents of the main CS4 iso to it took 3 hours at around 8GB, and it's faster than this drive. This drive needed to be USB 3.0 speeds, or it the whole concept needed shelved.

 

[robodude666]

It seems companies forgot one can get a 320GB 2.5" HDD for $75 and a 2.5" enclosure for $20-30, not to mention there are three USB 3.0 external HDDs for $150-180 on NewEgg right now. Hell, you can get a SSD that has built in USB 2.0 support.

A flash drive beyond 16/32GB seems a bit pointless, no?

 

[Frick]

It seems companies forgot one can get a 320GB 2.5" HDD for $75 and a 2.5" enclosure for $20-30, not to mention there are three USB 3.0 external HDDs for $150-180 on NewEgg right now. Hell, you can get a SSD that has built in USB 2.0 support.

The memory stick is waaay smaller.

I'm still amazed we live in a world when we can cram this much storage on a thing as big as my finger. Frikkin' amazing, although I kinda agree on this is a waste of money.

 

[Mussels]

true that the memory stick is smaller, but why not buy an 8/16GB thats twice as fast and tons cheaper? you still get the same job done.. the only benefit of THIS, is that it holds more files, and that gets negated when you consider it takes twice as long to get them on there.