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 : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockMarketMaven who wrote (6761)	1/25/1999 9:03:00 PM
From: BBG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Quy....Thanks for the informative article >>>PC Computing Article: Clik vs. Flash RAM Winner: CompactFlash For the price of a 32MB CompactFlash card you can get a Clik drive and a CompactFlash memory reader. After this, the $10 cost of 40MB Clik disks is negligible. But the Clik adds clutter to the camera bag, and its mechanical parts are a malfunction waiting to happen. CompactFlash is lightweight, reliable, and hassle-free storage. Watch for flash capacities to rise as prices fall. Clik vs. Flash RAM Mechanical Parts The rewritable Clik is not only subject to malfunction and wear, but its parts also create a slight delay before recording data--a potential problem when snapping action photos.<<<< Above is from the ZDNET article... BBG

To: StockMarketMaven who wrote (6761)	1/25/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Quy Le - Interesting article comparing Clik! to Flash. Thanks for posting that link. The author is correct that until Clik! is built in to the camera, the Clik! drive adds bulk to your camera bag. I have no problem with the author's conclusion that Flash is better for the reasons he states. But there is no question that the price advantage is still going to make Clik! compelling for many buyers. I note also that the author says that digital cameras with Clik! built in will be available by this summer. I expect that Clik! and Flash will coexist in the marketplace for some time. - Allen

To: StockMarketMaven who wrote (6761)	1/25/1999 10:47:00 PM
From: Rocky Reid	Respond to of 10072

Excellent article, Quy. Thank you. zdnet.com ...But the Clik adds clutter to the camera bag, and its mechanical parts are a malfunction waiting to happen. CompactFlash is lightweight, reliable, and hassle-free storage. Watch for flash capacities to rise as prices fall. Clik vs. Flash RAM Mechanical Parts: The rewritable Clik is not only subject to malfunction and wear, but its parts also create a slight delay before recording data--a potential problem when snapping action photos. Don't say I didn't warn you.= Iomaniacs. Flop!'s inevitable warranty returns, combined with the heavy losses it is suffering because of its non-existent sales, could be enough to put Iomega under for good. I would get out before the Short sellers take even more of the typical Iomaniac's money.

To: StockMarketMaven who wrote (6761)	1/26/1999 9:24:00 AM
From: Tom Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10072

PC Computing on Clik! vs. Flash Quy and all, How come the PC Computing article points out that the Clik! has moving parts and is subject to wear and tear, failure, etcetera, but it says nothing similar about the upcoming IBM Microdrive? Maybe the author thinks IBM products are frictionless. Cheers, Tom (long IOM)

To: StockMarketMaven who wrote (6761)	1/26/1999 10:46:00 AM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 10072

Ron White most likely did not test the clik! in the field since there are no testing data other than one statement regarding capture. Mr. White is making a general comparison if used in the field. Mr. White is relying on, apparently, past experience regarding moving parts. Although well written, most of the information in the article can be seriously discounted since he is speaking from a professional's view point. 80% of those who buy clik! are expected to be amateurs, mom and pops, and your neighbor due mainly to the cost factor of clik! over flash. functionality is a secondary issue; and the test data I've seen shows the clik! to function (like the zip has worked) with significant dependability.