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 : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Gebing who wrote (39018)	12/9/1997 9:39:00 AM
From: Ben Antanaitis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

9:40AM EST 29 1/16 down 1 on 203K traded.

To: Tom Gebing who wrote (39018)	12/9/1997 9:43:00 AM
From: Spank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

tom, OT I don't need any reassurance that anti-cloning measures are a positive move. The IBD article says they re-designed the DISK to prevent cloning. My question was about re-designing the DRIVE vs the DISK. I don't see that changing the DISK prevents cloning, hence my question. There were several posts in the past (thanks to E.P.) that discussed various anti-spoofing methods being implemented in various Iomega drives. A recent post referenced a "light baffle" and included, I believe, some verbage that made it seem like it was done not too long ago. If IOM has decided to incorporate anti-clone measures in new drives, that's what I'd like to find out.