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.

Technology Stocks : QUANTUM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: roger held who wrote (4327)	10/26/1997 10:29:00 PM
From: Frodo Baxter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9124

As I detailed in 4324, the math wouldn't work out correctly with 2.3G/plate. It must be a leveraged 1.3G/plate design. Besides, it would be difficult to believe the drive would have the fastest rotation speed AND the highest areal density.

To: roger held who wrote (4327)	10/27/1997 9:11:00 AM
From: UpwardBound	Respond to of 9124

Yes, Fireball ST is a big hitter. It is common disk drive strategy to obsolete your own products before the competition can. If ST is a 6 month product, that only means that bumping the capacity of ST to the next level is a relatively simple task. Through close examination of the products, you will see that SE is simply a redefinition of ST. Same basic product, more capacity through a few tweaks. --UpwardBound

To: roger held who wrote (4327)	10/28/1997 12:00:00 PM
From: Henry W Singor	Respond to of 9124

>Also, was Fireball ST really that big a hitter? Seems like QNTM went >to SE within 6 months. Maybe it didn't make sense for SEG to have the >intermediate product to compete for that short a period of time. I >think SEG tried to compete with a 5 vs. 4 platter model based upon >cheaper component cost and lower margins for a short period of time >anticipating the move to 2.1GB/platter. Interesting Point Lawrence. Quantum has stated that the SE is ready to fly. The delay seems to be in getting customers to Qual the drive. I guess when a customer spends the money to qual a 2 platter 4 head 3.2GB drive using 1.6GB/platter they will be less than excited about qualling a 2 platter 3 head 3.2GB drive that uses 2.1GB/platter. I can see their point. Henry