Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic
From: logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Request for Info on FLOPTICAL drives
Keywords: FLOPTICAL, REMOVABLE
Message-ID: <841@wet.UUCP>
Date: 7 Dec 89 06:36:42 GMT
References: <853@amc-vlsi.UUCP> <848@appleoz.oz.au> <855@amc-vlsi.UUCP>
Reply-To: logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan)
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 31

In article <855@amc-vlsi.UUCP> ryan (Ryan Jorgenson) writes:
>
>     Better still, the access times are quoted as being (working from memory)
>around 65 ms.  These things would not only make great BACKUP devices, but 
>are practical as low-cost removable hard-drives.
>
>   So, to reiterate my original question:  has anybody got one of these 
>up and running on a MAC under either MacOS or A/UX?
>
>			--Ryan
>

I played with an Insite for a little bit and came away pretty underwhelmed.
First off, it was slow.  Slow seek time as well as huge rotational latency
made this puppy pretty sluggish.  Transfer time was about equivalent to a
floppy as well.  It did store 20MB per floppy so I guess it would be a great
replacement for the standard 1.4MB floppy that everyone is using now.

I don't remember exactly but I believe that the Insite doesn't support all
the SCSI commands either.  In any event, it acted pretty flaky.  I wouldn't
buy one until Insite has ironed all the kinks out first.

Toshiba recently announced a 4MB floppy which is downwards compatible with 1M
and 2MB (unformatted) floppies.  IBM expressed interest in using these in the
new PS/2's.  Downward compatibility is one big advantage that these
Toshiba's enjoy and that Insite does not.
-- 
Henry Kwan                |  AppleLink: D0690
FWB, Inc.                 |  CompuServe: 71320,1034
2040 Polk St.  Ste 215    |  Internet: claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov
San Francisco, CA  94109  |  UUCP: {claris,hoptoad,lamc,ucsfcca}!wet!logic