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 : QUANTUM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuck Bleakney who wrote (7331)	2/16/1998 10:20:00 AM
From: Z Analyzer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9124

Chuck, Quantum is telling us not to look for significant improvement from the current huge high end losses through this calendar year, partly because the new high end drives are a quarter late to market. I found this quie discouraging and also suspect that trying to produce leading edge high end drives will be very difficult due to IBM's technology leadership. Do you foresee everyone having trouble competing against IBM as with notebook drives? How optimistic are you that QNTM's next generation wil be on time and more competitive?

To: Chuck Bleakney who wrote (7331)	2/16/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: John Biddle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9124

Chuck, or anyone. I've wondered for a long time why drive mfgs don't add a second (or more) head to each arm in order to be able to read more without seeking again. Seems to me this wouldn't take too much extra in parts and could substantially increase ability to get the data both on to and off of the platters. Given that transfer rates of the rest of the system are in excess of the theoretical maximums of reading data off the platters, this could be a boon to performance. I'm sure this is wrong or would have been done, so I'm looking for where I've made my mistake(s).

To: Chuck Bleakney who wrote (7331)	2/16/1998 11:49:00 PM
From: Mark Oliver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9124

<Most of my experience is with being a member of a team working on high end disk electronics. I'm not a senior member, just a grunt. > Have you got any idea how soon we will see more wires going to the head? We currently see 4 wires and sometimes 5 used for MR heads vs 2 for TFI. They say there will soon be more components brought onto the suspension which will need more wires going directly to the head. If so, how soon do you see this happening? If this is the case, do you see TSA, (trace leads etched onto the suspension) or FOS (flex on suspension) as being the winning method of interconnect? I have been reading that Quantum has gone with the TSA program that Hutchinson sells along with their suspensions. Have you any opinions of either the Hutchinson product, or Innovex's flex circuits? I've been very impressed by Innovex's ability to remain profitable and maintain +40% margins despite what has happened in the last 2 quarters. Still, this risk to their domination of the head interconnect market is looming. I am also reading that Read-Rite is developing a FOS solution as I imagine may be the case for other head manufacturers. It is still a big holding for me and I've hesitated to sell as I had believed their skill at manufacturing and good management would get them through, but if they are too far behind the technial curve, it will be difficult. So far, Seagate has been the only announced backer of Innovex with their design wins for the Cheetah. On the other hand, if Hutchinson can win the hearts of all high end designers with their TSA, it would seem they will remain the key suspension supplier and will be very profitable in the future. Regards, Mark