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: FuzzFace who wrote (41064)	12/20/1997 5:18:00 PM
From: AreWeThereYet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

OT to Edwin >> Let the consumer see a number that has some relationship to real world performance. << You show lack of understanding about the idea behind benchmark. Most benchmark just show your the relative performance. It is impossible to tell WHAT THE CONSUMER WILL EXPECT IN REAL LIFE ERFORMANCE because there other relevant hardwares involved. The same piece of hardware can have dramatic difference real life performance in 2 diff systems. The keys to determine which HDD is better is looking at the Access time, rpm or latency and DTR. And not by a simple winBench# or sysMark ... because when Win98 is arrive the winBench# must be revised. A HDD may have avg 5MB/s with Win95 but have only avg 3-4MB/s (because Win98 will yield better performance for high DTR HDD while access time is less important than in Win95). NT, OS/2 and Linux result will also slightly different but their sDTR always remain constant. So it is the most honest way to advertise a DSAD device. OTOH If a company advertised the speed base on the 16.6 or 33.3MB/s bandwidth then it is misleading since it is not the sDTR of the device. Advertise by benchmark program is fine with me but imo it is the most misleading and dishonest way because the manufacturer can play with the #s. For example, using an older version of benchmark program. Report just partial benchmark result, compare two system with different hardwares. >> You are long SYQT, yes? << No, I don't long nor short both SYQT or IOM. >> Reread the real world performance numbers on the SYQT thread and compare them to the numbers on the box. << I said the # reported in the SYQT thread is invalid and while I am not 100% sure but I am very confident that EIDE SparQ can do much better than 800k/sec. For instance from usenet there is a PP SparQ user Andrus Siawyn said "30meg file copy from HD to PP SparQ = 15 Seconds. EIDE version will be much faster." Obviously this is another invalid test. Will you simply take his word and believe his PP result??? It is unwise to make any conclusion since EIDE SparQ just begin shipping in December! Time will tell. Also if they don't report the real DTR and access time of the device, what should they report??? >> 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. << This is also not valid. 1) A non-busmastering SCSI will be as bad as EIDE in term of CPU utilization. Trust me!!! 2) All Triton Chipset has busmaster capable EIDE controller built-in. This is the majority type of P5 motherboard. 3) Win95B is default to use Triton bus-master device and there are bus-master device drivers (Trione and Intel) available free to all Win95 and Win95A users. aC