Re: External HD usage question

[eliasj@gould.pvt.k12.me.us (Joran Elias)]

In article <4afgb3$7n3@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, nathan@cco.caltech.edu
(Nathan Mates) wrote:
 
>    I haven't used either, but they're supposed to be fairly similar.
> According to a review in a recent Mac magazine, the Zip's cartridges
> were a lot more shockproof-- they said they could throw them against
> walls (not while using them, though :) and the data would survive
> fine. Syquests couldn't do that, but I'm not sure if that's really a
> limitation most of us care about. The Zip also can only be SCSI ID 5
> or 6, whilt the Syquest is more flexible. (IDs only are important in
> that you can't have two devices with the same ID; if both 5 and 6 are
> already taken in your system, you'd have to move the one on 5 to
> something else).
> 
>    If I recall correctly, the mac magazine seemed to favor the Zip
> over the Syquest by a little-- the little extra head movement speed
> (not too noticable when copying large chunks like backups) and space
> of the Syquest wasn't enough for the extra $.
> 
> Nathan Mates

   Thanks for all the responses everyone...I have been following the Zip
vs. EZ debate in the Mac newsgroups, and actually, the durability issue
has been portrayed as rather close.  Apparently, the EZ drive is more
solid (i.e. heavier) than the zip, but that the zip cartridges are more
durable.  Everyone who bought one or the other seemed very pleased with
their purchase.

   Also, the Syquest fans come back from the $ issue with the fact that
you get 35 (i think) more megabytes per cartridge. 

   In any case, no consensus was ever really reached.  But then, they
never had to hook one up to a IIgs! ;)

jor