32GB e-ink reader recommendations?

[Renate]

Originally Posted by Quoth

... the fact all USB is half-duplex.USB.

What part of "Simultaneous bi-directional data flows" don't you understand?

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I don't have a USB SSD. I don't see the point of them for backup.

My point is that the connector used is almost unrelated to the USB speed version and something can have a USB 3.0 spec but not achieve as fast as a super fast SD Card on a USB 2.x speed due the nature of the device.

You can even have USB-C connector and less than USB 2.0 speeds.

Also the full speed of USB 3.0 isn't possible even with SSD to SSD, because that's the speed of the interface, there is the USB protocol overhead and the fact all USB is half-duplex.

No eink Ereader is going to get close to the limit of USB 2.0 speed. The kind of port has no effect. USB-C is used now because it's the standard for phones, tablets and similar gadgets, especially in EU and countries that use EU standards. USB-C isn't about faster transfer or even faster charging on ereaders.

Edit:
Some details on USB 3.x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0

An enterprise class NVMe over USB3.x to a high end NVMe PCIe SSD in decent computer is about the only thing that will approach USB 3.x speeds. Irrelevant to ereaders. You don't USB-C connectors. It's possible on USB-A to extended micro-USB connector or extended USB-B connector. A regular micro-USB cable will work, but slower.

There's already eInk readers that have faster transfer speeds than USB 2.0 allows...

No they don't reach USB 3.0 max speeds but they do go faster than 60MB/s the maximum of USB 2.0. I've seen my Boox readers do over 100+MB/s.

And even a cheap USB 3.0 flash drive these days will easily go over 60MB/s. Ditto things like SD card readers or 4K Webcams. I transferred a 60GB Blu-ray rip to my VR headset in less than a minute recently. Lots of reasons for USB 3.0 speeds beyond SSDs. SSDs are just one thing that easily hit the limit.

[Renate]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Which OS, copy command, and copy direction?

Windows 10 (64), adbsync.exe, writing to Poke3.
I never use MTP or UMS.
I find that ejecting an ereader can break the screen.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Renate

Windows 10 (64), adbsync.exe, writing to Poke3.

And you know that adbsync.exe did not complete before all the data was on the Poke3 how?

[Renate]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

And you know that adbsync.exe did not complete before all the data was on the Poke3 how?

OMG! Renate rips out her hair and explodes!

I've got a B&N Glow '21 with USB 2.0 (on a Type C).
I've got a Onyx Poke3 with USB 3.1 (Type C, natch).
Although the SoCs are not equivalent, they are within barking range.
To synchronize 1000 books, 4000 documents and 2000 guitar transcriptions takes a bunch of time on the Glow.
It takes a heck of a lot less time on my Poke3.
Why? Because there are a lot of transactions going around.
You have to compare timestamps and sizes of all the files.
That takes some time.
Usually there are only a dozen files to add or update.
Still, the USB 3x pulls through.
The critical thing for me is the time I sit twiddling my thumbs while the ereader is connected.
It interests me not that the poor dear will have to flush some buffers afterwards.

Edit: So in the interest of truthy-full-ness, I state:
I tried syncing my Poke3 (no writes necessary) and it took 1.8 seconds with USB 2.0 HS connection.
It took 1.8 seconds with a USB 3.1 connection.
I tried syncing my Glow21 (no writes necessary) and it took 1.4 seconds with USB 2.0 HS!

This does not belie my experience when there are bunches of files to be updated.
I just don't feel inclined to wipe everything and do a full sync today.

So, okay, @Quoth, you may have somewhat of a point.
But, as Galileo said, but yet USB 3.x is full duplex.

[Quoth]

Older USB are not full duplex and USB 3.x likely has its own funky definition of full duplex and what gadgets can do is another story.

What part of "Simultaneous bi-directional data flows" don't you understand?

True full duplex is simultaneous transfers in both directions at exactly the same instant. Even when the communications medium supports it, it may not in practice be used. File transfer between journaling file systems will alternately transmit and receive. WiFi is usually half-duplex as the same channel is used both ways, but a lot of Mobile phone systems use separate parts of the band for uplink and downlink.


But the point is that having a USB-C connector on a brand new ereader tells you nothing about if it's USB 2.x or USB 3.x, or what speed it goes.

Of course some things go very fast and can use USB 3.x if the cable and both ends support it.

Also if a gadget is USB 3.x you need a compatible cable and either a blue USB 3.x USB-A socket (looks like regular kind and is backwards compatible to ordinary USB-A plugs used on USDB -A sockets using USB 1.x to 2.x.).

I was only giving some strange examples.

[Renate]

Originally Posted by Quoth

But the point is that having a USB-C connector on a brand new ereader tells you nothing about if it's USB 2.x or USB 3.x, or what speed it goes.

I don't know why you are trying to hammer in this point.
I've said as much on many occasions.
I don't see anybody here trying to deny it.

For the duplex question, read the standards.

I'm saying: USB 3.x is "better" (operationally for a consumer) than USB 2.0
Whether it's worth the effort for Manufacturer X or Consumer Y is another thing.

If you've got a beef with the EU mandate, that's separate.

[Quoth]

Of course USB 3.x is better than USB 2.x which is better than USB 1.x, but it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

My original point is about the type of physical connector doesn't tell you the speed, though obviously the blue USB-A for USB 3.x, the USB-B with a top deck (USB 3.x and backward compatible) and the elongated micro-USB (USB 3.x and backward compatible) suggests USB 3.x and faster speed. But a USB-C connector on its own tells you nothing about the speed.

That is irrelevant to the USB-C on newer Kobo ereaders, many phones, Tablets and some other ereaders. They simply have a USB-C rather than micro-USB and the Sage being faster than a Libra 2 or micro-USB Libra is simply because the eReader is faster. Even Apple will have to put USB-C on their phones to sell them in EU. The EU isn't saying it must be a full spec USB-C with Video and USB 3.x speed. They are only mandating the connector.

Not once did I complain about EU mandate, nor claim there was no point to USB 3.0.

For the last time, ordinary stuff has USB-C now rather than micro-USB because (A) it's the latest thing, (B) The EU says so to sell in the EU. Some newer Kobo ereaders are faster because they are faster. They'd be just as fast with any kind of USB connector, not because they have USB-C.

[Phssthpok]

Originally Posted by Colonel Cathcart

Check out https://www.youtube.com/c/MyDeepGuide/videos for in depth reviews, if you haven't already, to make sure the device you intend to buy will fill your needs out of the box.

Thanks for the link!

[Phssthpok]

Originally Posted by Renate

Watch out. Most things have gone to Type C, but all Type C is not USB 3.0+.
The latest Barnes & Noble 6" is Type C and USB 2.0
Ok, some people may not care.

I just get fed up having to keep dozens of incompatible cables for all my different devices with "universal" serial bus connectors.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Phssthpok

I just get fed up having to keep dozens of incompatible cables for all my different devices with "universal" serial bus connectors.

"Funny" how it works out that way.

[Quoth]

I've 6 kinds of peripheral USB sockets and 3 kinds of host sockets
I don't actually have all the kinds of ideal cables.

It was never a "bus", but it did replace RS422 (which is a bus, and original AppleTalk used it), AT & PS/2 serial connections for keyboards, DB9 RS232 serial and PS/2 serial for mouse, RS232 for modems (but not for PC to PC comms!*), RS485 and the 15 pin analogue + buttons joystick port. That's what the "universal" bit meant.

[* Later there was a USB gadget with two USB-A cables for PC to PC]

[Phssthpok]

Originally Posted by rcentros

"Funny" how it works out that way.

It's like the way the S in SQL stands for "Structured" rather than "Standard", and the "Java" in "JavaScript" doesn't mean "Java".

[Phssthpok]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I've 6 kinds of peripheral USB sockets and 3 kinds of host sockets
I don't actually have all the kinds of ideal cables.

It was never a "bus", but it did replace RS422 (which is a bus, and original AppleTalk used it), AT & PS/2 serial connections for keyboards, DB9 RS232 serial and PS/2 serial for mouse, RS232 for modems (but not for PC to PC comms!*), RS485 and the 15 pin analogue + buttons joystick port. That's what the "universal" bit meant.

[* Later there was a USB gadget with two USB-A cables for PC to PC]

And let's not forget Centronics/DB-25 (and others) for parallel ports...

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Phssthpok

And let's not forget Centronics/DB-25 (and others) for parallel ports...

I'd not forgotten it, SCSI, firewire or GPIB. I was only listing serial interfaces.

USB 1.0 was too slow to replace, parallel, SCSI, Firewire or GPIB. USB 1.1 was still too slow. USB 2.0 was needed (April 2000, but widespread support very much later, a cheap SCSI scanner in 2002 was still faster than the same model in a USB version for most people).

Windows 95 didn't originally have USB. The USB 1.0 standard was released in 1996. MS cancelled the last SP for NT4.0 which added USB (I tried the beta) to boost Windows 2000 sales (the first NT with USB). I think the early iPods had Firewire rather than USB and either kind was a pain to use with Win95.