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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : JTS- "A Nordic Drive in Every PC and laptop" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chris431 who wrote (1672)	1/20/1998 5:46:00 PM
From: David Krafcsik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1985

You know, we keep hearing that the JTS drives are slugs, but after benchmarking them myself (see post #1519) they were in the ballpark of other comparably priced drives (within 10%). I went to read the article in question to see if they quoted any actual numbers, and couldn't find any, but I did read this interesting paragraph: "Maxtor DiamondMax 2160 (model 88400D8) There's no mistaking the DiamondMax 2160's performance: In our copy test, this 8GB (nominal) drive was 2.5 times as fast as its closest competitor for reading from and writing to the disk. We were surprised-and ran the test four extra times to confirm the dramatically superior results." This drive has the same rpm and is also an Ultra DMA drive just like the JTS Champion line. I would expect the speed to be relatively close (and I'd be willing to bet it is relatively close, Windows magazine's "expert" opinion notwithstanding). Also, I'm a little surprised at the wording of the above. When you run a test and you're "surprised" (i.e., the results are not expected) you don't just run the test 4 more times, you figure out what is really going on. Bad data is bad data. You just aren't going to see a factor of 3 speed difference among drives that use the same technology, unless something is seriously wrong. Interestingly enough, the article snippet I saw didn't mention: a) what kind of machine the drives were tested on b) if they were all tested ON THE SAME MACHINE (as they should be) c) if cacheing programs were turned off, or if the benchmark automatically ignored them, or broke that out as a separate test (as Coretest does) Even Computer Gaming World does that. If anyone has one of the new Ultra-DMA drives I'd like to see some benchmarks run. The Coretest 3.03 benchmark seemed to be the best one that I came across. (again see post #1519 for where to get that benchmark).