Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #4533Re: Compare Quantam and Seagate?
From: Bob Luneski
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 1990 19:38
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 1990 19:38
14 lines
1165 bytes
1165 bytes
>In article <3644@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes: >>they cost more. The ST-157N and ST-138N are poor excuses for drives, IMHO. > I disagree, I have been using a Seagate 157N for nearly a year now with absolutely no problems. I have also had no problems for the 1.5 years my Seagate 296N has been in service. These are very heavily used drives. My only complaint with the 296N is that although the seek rate is high, the transfer rate is rather low. However, the Supra Wordsync interface helps and since it costs over $300 less than the same capacity Quantum, it is an inconveinince I can live with. Bob Luneski bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9498@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca.wv.tek.com!pogo!bluneskiReferences:
<3644@crash.cts.com> <9798@hubcap.clemson.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca.wv.tek.com!pogo!bluneski From: bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Compare Quantam and Seagate? Message-ID: <9498@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> Date: 24 Jul 90 19:38:42 GMT References: <3644@crash.cts.com> <9798@hubcap.clemson.edu> Reply-To: bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 14