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: AreWeThereYet who wrote (40965)	12/19/1997 9:18:00 PM
From: Fred J. Ledo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

Edwin Peters/Andy Chu, I dig your tech wars!! Like I've said before, IOM is the best trading stock... Fred

To: AreWeThereYet who wrote (40965)	12/20/1997 2:51:00 PM
From: FuzzFace	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

OT to Andy <After two posts, you still provide no proof that I am wrong> I am not interested in proving you wrong. I don't even know any more what you wrote that I'm supposed to be proving wrong. I am the one making the point that you took issue with. It's a simple point. Let me repeat it. The SparQ, Jaz, HD etc. specs don't reflect real performance. They are a deliberate attempt by the manufacturers to deceive the consumer that it is possible to get these numbers in his system. I've seen graphics cards whose boxes don't even bother to tell you important stuff, like whether it's ISA or PCI, what kind of RAM it uses, or how much it has. Now what point is there for DD manufacturers to put internal transfer or burst rate numbers on the box? Or in product announcements? Simply this. By doing do, they get people to repeat those bogus numbers and cause people (even some fairly knowledgable ones) to think those are typical performance numbers. That is the problem. We need a single benchmark number to make quick, meaningful comparisons. High-end people who care about that kind of stuff can look at spec sheets. Let the consumer see a number that has some relationship to real world performance. Sure these numbers are often proportional to the real throughput achievable with the drive. But not always. Sure there are lots of variables, and most drives will perform differently in different configurations. Andy, from the beginning you have responded to my posts, initially directed at others, which have asserted that the SparQ numbers are inflated, like all DD numbers are inflated. You didn't like that. You are long SYQT, yes? Fine. I understand. Now, much to the boredom of our thread-mates, we both get off on DD gobbledegook. From what you've written, I can tell that you are the more knowledgable, you've read more about DDs than I have. But you apparently feel the need to defend SparQ's inflated specs. That is not to your credit. We both know what these numbers are and what they mean. Reread the real world performance numbers on the SYQT thread and compare them to the numbers on the box. It should not be so hard for you to admit the specs are meaningless to the average consumer. That there is a real need for reform. By all DD manufacturers, not just Syquest. P.S. I disagree with you about EIDE. EIDE is still CPU bound for most people. The majority are not running with bus mastering. Go find someone with an ordinary Pentium 133 or 166 and do a 100MB transfer from one disk to another. Run SYSMON while doing it, and notice the CPU utilization. I'll bet it is at 100%, not 20%. Once I finish reconfiguring my new system for maximum disk performance, I'll report to you what CPU percent I get with bus mastered UDMA.