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: Rocky Reid who wrote (44110)	1/20/1998 10:43:00 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 58324

>>Allen, please give an explanation where you stated "I do think that the testing methodology used by the author of the article was somewhat suspect, but this kind of press is not going to help." Please give the reasons you believe the test was not conducted fairly.<< Rocky - Well, I think that testing an Ultra SCSI device, which by design has an upper limit on transfer speed of 20MB, against a UDMA drive and an Ultra-Wide SCSI drive, with transfer limits of 33MB and 40MB, respectively, is comparing apples to oranges. A more reasonable test would have been Ultra SCSI against Ultra SCSI, don't you think? Still, as you say, this does help to open the door at the higher end for SyQuest. Now, if you ask whether or not I think this will hurt Iomega badly, I would have to say no. If Jaz2 flops completely, it will hurt Iomega. But you can't hit a home-run every time. And I don't believe the drive will be a total fizz. For one thing, I'm sure prices will come down on it, if it isn't introduced at a lower price. For another, it would still be hard for current Jaz owners to give up being able to use their 1GB cartridges. That's still a good reason to go with Jaz2 instead of a competitor. - Allen