🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3u3ktt$ope@meaddata.meaddata.com> christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes:

   In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.950713020455.8249C-100000@usr1.primenet.com>, logix <logix@usr1.primenet.com> writes:

   |> Also better than CD-ROM in some cases...

   |> For example, say I buy Photoshop 3.01 and it comes on one 25 Meg
   |> Zip disk instead of a CD-ROM...when Photoshop 3.1 or whatever comes
   |> out, I can reformat my Zip disk and USE IT. Unlike a CD-ROM, 

   The blank Zip disk costs an order of magnutide more than the pressed
   CD-ROM.  With OEM discounts, the cost of the recorded Zip disk might
   be only 5 to 10 times the cost of the pressed CD.

   And the chances of screwing up the CD-ROM are much smaller than the
   chances of screwing up any recordable medium... Even screwed-up
   software can't ruin it, let alone stray magnetic fields...

I agree on that. But there isn't no reason why both media could
coexist. The CD-ROM as the medium for distributing software, and the
ZipDrive for distributing data. I really like that read-only concept
of the CD-ROM as an installation device. It doesn't get screwed up by
anything but a knife or time. Magnetig media has that magnetic
weakness. And since it's WMRM, you could render your original
installation disks unusable..

But we really need something spacier than that darned 1.44 sucker. And
I men a BIG leap. 20MB floptical etc. just won't do it. With the
multimedia era running down our necks, 100MB is just a few seconds.

So let's all jump on the ZipDisk crusade, knights!

(Yes, I AM convinced..)


-- 
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| ambolt@stud.unit.no  | Department of Computer Systems and Telematics |
| "Save the Snails!!"  | Norwegian Institute of Technology             |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+