🚀 go-pugleaf

Dale DePriest (daled@cds9172.Cadence.COM) wrote:
: I was quoting real prices 19.95 avaiable via some stores, mail order, and
: directly from syquest.  The 3 packs are available from sysquest directly
: and from one mail order source that I can't think of currently.  I was
: mentioning it because you claimed you had to order 10 to get that price which

I claimed that you had to buy Zips in packs of 10 for the $14.95 each 
price. I don't recall claiming that for the EZ.

: |> >The point, however, is that there is no significant savings for EZ 
: |> >cartridges over Zip.

: Actually you originally said your point was zip was cheaper.  Which is
: not the case.

It was and in some cases still is. Locally that has not been the case. In
ANY case, my point was/is that there is no huge savings for EITHER ONE. 
Even if the EZ drops a fraction of a cent per megabyte over the Zip, it's
going to take a long time to add up. Same the other way. With that out of 
the way, it boils down to: faster or more reliable.

: lose space if you formatted one partition at greater than 128 Meg since
: the fat tables would waste more space.  My point was that 25% capacity
: used by Maxwell was a bogus number leading to a pricing advantage for zip
: which is currently not the case. 

How your operating system handles it is not my problem. I used the raw 
capacity/1,000,000 given by the respective manufacturers. If you somehow 
lose space in the translation because of your OS, you have my sympathy.

Regardless of your nitpicking, the EZ offers no clear advantage over the
Zip in cost/meg. Neither does the Zip over the EZ. It is mostly 
irrelevant to the comparison.