Given similar storage capacities, which brand or type of jump/ flash are better?
92396
Hope you are talking about flah/jump drives...\nI think it will depend on what exactly do you want. For example you will find a few 1GB which are smaller than other ones. Some could have integrated mp3 players, etc. About brands I've used Kingston(better reputatin in my opinion), and Sandisk(real tiny flash drive). Both have worked perfectly. So I say do not worry, as long as they have a nice warranty (which most do).
896839
Sandisk Cruzer. I have it and it's working great. I got 2 megs for 30 bucks at Best Buy. (It's on sale)
364928
If both machines have USB ports, transferring files with a jump drive is probably the best method. Jump drives are available for 20 bucks or less and are very useful.
1007
Per experience, Windows Media Player is a resource hog (but Media Player Classic is pretty light!).  Winamp (with classical skins), take up the least amount of memory, while Real Player in my experience is the worst of the bunch.
630190
Limewire, because it doesnt take much memory as Kazaa and you could get Limewire pro off of Basic limewire just search for it on programs
490973
There are NO good USB ones, they are too slow!  Quality sux!  Buy a desktop and get an ATI ALL IN WONDER Card.  This is what the professionals use.
878160
Flash Memory Thumb Drives and USB External Hard drives.  That's where it's at today.   Double Layer DVDs are cool, but don't come close to Flash and hard drives for quick access, transportability and awesome backups.\n\nGood luck and Happy Computing!
639136
As long as you have drivers for it, but that's old technology. You can get a larger storage thumb drive that works easier and faster for less than $50
374778
in terms of speed - YES.\nin terms of Storage - NO\n\nyour choice and decision?\n\nwhat would you prefer - speed or storage?
247994
I use CS2, Dreamweaver and Flash 8, and I have a gig of DDR. I can only use 2 of these programs at the same time. they each require alot of system resources to operate. \n\nI would lean to the one with the AMD proccessor, I like AMD 1000 times better than Intel. But I would t least get a gig of DDR even if you are only using Photoshop alone.
133034
It depends on what you are going to use it for.  I would suggest a minimum 512MB.  1gb and higher are still a little on the pricey side.  Again if it is to store just word documents and stuff then 512 will be fine.  I use my 512 to keep programs(adaware, firefox, ...) I need when I fix computers.
1138517
They all work well. Even the off brands. Don't be deceived by "speed" claims. Any will serve your purpose.\n\nJust get one in the largest size you can afford. You will never say "I have too much space."
786492
you can get a larger memory stick\nE
449849
I got a 128 mb Kingston.  It is the silver one.   Nice looking and no data has ever been lost.  If you have usb2, it can use that kind of port, so transferring files are fast.  If you can afford it, then get a 1 gb, or 4 gb.  But for saving files that don't amount to much memory, 128 mb is sufficent.   Kingston is the only one that I have ever used.  There is no splash screens that pop-up everytime you put the drive into the usb device, so that eliminates time wasted.
477938
find a convertor and convert them as flash files it will help you have some space
1025555
I would do NTFS.\n\nNTFS may be faster...\n   - smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM\n   - indexed design more efficient for many files per directory\n   - small file data embedded in dir level, avoids seek to data chain\n   - above factors make fragmentation less onerous than for FATxx\n   - 4k cluster size matches processor's natural paging size\n...or slower...\n   - extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption\n   - small clusters may fragment data cluster chains\n\nNTFS may be safer...\n   - transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations\n   - file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.\n   - automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)\n...or more at risk...\n   - no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS\n   - no maintenance OS for NTFS\n   - malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty\n   - transaction rollback does not preserve user data\n   - transaction rollback does not help other causes of corruption\n   - more limited range of maintenance tools\n   - automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)\n\nNTFS may be more space-efficient...\n   - smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G\n   - may include data of small files within the directory level\n   - NTFS's bitmap structure is smaller than FAT32's dual FAT\n   - sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage\n...or less so...\n   - NTFS has large MFT structure\n   - larger per-file directory metadata space\n\nI would use NTFS where:\n\nUsers have professional-grade IT admin, including backup \nUsers need to hide data more than they need to salvage it \nApplications require files over 4G in size \nHard drive exceeds the 137G barrier \nBut while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...\n\nData can easily be recovered \nFile system structure can be manually checked and repaired \nMalware can be scanned for and cleaned
241598
USB hard drives are the most convenient, but Firewire is faster and slightly more expensive.  Check out manufacturers like www.iomega.com, www.woverine.com, www.pocketec.com.  www.lacie.com, etc.  Tiger Direct and Priority Electronics have competitive prices.  The price is also dependent upon capacity, as larger means more expensive.