Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucselx!crash!pnet01!uzun
From: uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Compare Quantam and Seagate?
Message-ID: <3644@crash.cts.com>
Date: 23 Jul 90 00:56:01 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Lines: 19

I have owned several seagate and quantum drives.  I have had few problems
with seagates, but none with quatums.  Quantums perform as advertised, and
performance is quite good, especially for the price.  Seagates performance
is below what they claim, and they claim less than quantum, they can be found
for somewhat less $$$.  Seagates take a long time to spin up, and are noisy.

I would steer clear of seagate, not because they are pieces of crap, they
are ok, but they do not compare well with quantums, at least not
the "traditional" seagates.  The new Imprimis and CDC Wren series that
seagate has aquired will probably perform better than the quantums, but
they cost more.  The ST-157N and ST-138N are poor excuses for drives, IMHO.

(I guess if you can get one cheap enough , like a St-138N for $200.00 or
so, it might be worth it)
-Roger

UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.com