[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2

Subject: Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
From: Alex Freed <alexf@mirrow.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:18:15 -0700
In-reply-to: <3p-dnaw6ndelaCTVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
References: <3dc74321-57e9-49a9-9f0e-07517b4fe3cf@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <n8-dncbtUYWz1CrVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <YKidnYVr-eazmyXVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com> <OtWdnS8TeptkbCTVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com> <3p-dnaw6ndelaCTVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:2951

Bill Garber wrote:

That was a completely different company.  Zip Technologies went
bankrupt.  The Zip Drive was made by iomega.
http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/ZipAd.jpg
Then, no offense, why are they both on the same ad?



Looks like there was more than one Zip Drive. I guess after the company

behind the Apple ZipDrive(tm) went under, the TM didn't matter much anymore. So Iomega recycled it.


-Alex.

References:
- ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
  - From: Drew <GoggleDrew@gmail.com>
- Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
  - From: Steven Hirsch <snhirsch@gmail.com>
- Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
  - From: "Henry S. Courbis" <apl2research(a.t.)comcast.net>
- Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
  - From: "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>
- Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
  - From: "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: //c external drive continuously running.
Next by Date: Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
Previous by thread: Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
Next by thread: Re: ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread