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.

Technology Stocks : SYQUEST -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Reich who wrote (5527)	2/12/1998 4:23:00 PM
From: Troy Shaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7685

Joe, <<If this is correct, it should have been (be) trivial to allow the Syjet to recognize SparQ cartridges... >> The SyJet uses two platters and four heads, the SparQ uses one platter and two heads. The capacity of the SyJet is 750MB per platter and the SparQ is 1.0GB per platter, that extra capacity did require some modification. So, a SyJet couldn't use a SparQ disk, because of a capacity and platter count difference that wasn't planned for when it was designed. It is feasible that SyQuest could come out with a new SyJet that could work with SparQ disks, but is it worth it? The SparQ could have been designed to use both 750MB platters and 1GB platters, but that still wouldn't work with a SyJet disk because of the platter count. If I'm right about the SparQ, then the reduction of the number of heads is one of the few cost savings the SparQ has over the SyJet. If you have had a chance to compare the SyJet cartridges and the SparQ cartridges, they look the same. Looks like they just yanked the bottom platter on the SparQ.