Re: EZ135 vs. Iomega Zip

[zaleski@zeus.franklin.edu (Paul Zaleski)]

In article <41h6mb$21b@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> wuji@acf2.nyu.edu (wuji) writes:
>Paul Zaleski (zaleski@zeus.franklin.edu) wrote:
>
>: The Zip drive, although more compact and lighter weight, doesnt have the 
>: sturdiest construction.  The case is flimsy plastic, and the media is 
>: thinner than the magnetic media of a 3.5" floppy.  
>
>: The EZ135 was specifically designed to compete with the Iomega Zip drive 
>: and is promoted as a "Zip drive killer."
>
>: Personally, I would "trust" my data more on the Syquest than on the 
>: Iomega.
>
>Really? I hate SyQuest drives. I have used the 270's extensively and
>found them to be terribly unreliable. They work great at first, but if 
>use them as hard drives for a prolonged period of time, they don't
>mount anymore. I have a *stack* of bad SyQuest disks sitting on my book-
>shelf. The Zip drive is not "flimsy." Iomega once demoed the Zip drive
>by dropping it 8ft onto a table *while* it was reading and writing.
>It Zipped happily along and no data was lost and the drive and disk
>were fine. SyQuest cartridges on the other hand rattle and are not 
>as sturdy. Try dropping your SyQuest drive while it is reading and
>writing. Any takers?
>
>Jim


The 270 carts. use a 5.25" platter, right?

I do know that the EZ135, based on 3.5" carts, is a completely different 
animal than older generation SyQuest drives.  As time passes, technology 
evolves.

Jim, you're comparing rotting oranges, to freshly picked ones:

I do know that you cant claim the same thing with one of Iomega's older 
removable mechanisms.  At the time, Iomega and Syquest were both on the 
same plateau.  Now, with evolved product lines, both companies have 
improved their products.

    -Paul