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: John Biddle who wrote (7342)	2/16/1998 4:01:00 PM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9124

John, when data is arranged in cylinders you still read from one head at a time, because there is only one read channel. Head to head switching is faster than accessing a new track. Yes, >>By reading from all heads simultaneously, and reassembling the data electronically, you could raise the throughput significantly. << If that was the bottleneck and you didn't mind the cost for the extra read channels. There are, I believe, disk drive arrays that read simultaneously from each of the drives. I think for desk top drives costing less than 5 cents per MB retail, every additional dollar counts. All of the things you suggest can be done if the customer needs it and is willing to pay for it. GM

To: John Biddle who wrote (7342)	2/16/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: Hungry Investor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9124

John, >>By reading from all heads simultaneously, and reassembling the data electronically, you could raise the throughput significantly.<< Is there that much of a problem with the throughput to justify a 10-15% increase in the cost of a drive? Also the complexity of this type of scenario would add many additional costs besides the actual heads. Would the average consumer be willing to pay for the extra throughput speed??? How much would the company have to spend to educate the user on the differences?? Also creates problems in the assembly lines, we now would need new lines (additional cost) to build these new type of drives....just when the industry is trying to standardize things as much as possible to reduce the cost per drive. Its a nice thought, but I'm sure that it has been thought of by the R&D departments of all the big drive makers, and I'm sure they all came up with the fact that the additional cost per drive isn't worth reducing the seek time by 1/3-1/2 or increasing the throughput. Just my 2 cents, Scott.