Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The New Iomega '2000' Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (1378)	7/5/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: FruJu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5023

I compare Flop! to Microdrive because they are both mechanical devices that are crippled by the laws of physics. The first real world test of IBM Microdrive that I read revealed that it drains a great deal of battery power. Iomega Flop power consumption, as revealed by the VCall last week, is even worse than IBM's problems. (as is logical, as Flop! is a much larger mechanical device). Uh, can you quote line and passage in the VCall where they stated Clik!'s power consumption? The only mention I read of it is that it takes "less power than an LED" when in standby mode. Now, looking at IBM's technical specs, we see that in standby mode, the 340MB Microdrive takes 65mA at 3.3V, versus 300mA when writing. It's not too surprising then that the Microdrive sucks power; after all, it's a hard drive. It rotates faster, for longer periods of time (don't want to keep shutting down and starting up a hard drive). This gives you the advantage of faster writing and less latency, but you pay for it in power consumption as the tests show. It will be interesting to see how Clik! compares in normal usage. My guess is that "less power than an LED" corresponds to a lot less than IBM's Microdrive in standby mode.