Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.tech:13508 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:2686
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!haven!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!refine.enet.dec.com!pomeroy
From: pomeroy@refine.enet.dec.com (Robert Pomeroy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re:  Hard Drives
Message-ID: <13748@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 23 Jul 90 20:15:44 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 25


In article <9821.AA9821@caleb>, jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes...
>One poster claimed that Seagate doesn't know anything about 'large' drives.
>Well, the largest Quantum that I've heard about is the 105 Meg drive.

[Most of the above message deleted]

When I was interviewing at Apollo/HP they showed a 200 meg 3.5" HD, which
they said was a Quantum. I had previously never heard of a 200 meg, but I am
pretty sure they make a 160 meg. So, Quantum can make big drives. Maybe they
don't make a 760 meg drive, but nobody makes a 760 meg 3.5" 1/2 height yet.
(I say yet because the technology exists to make 4-800 meg HD's)

My personal experience with Seagate is that their drives are built with 
quality in mind. I have experienced only limited problems with Seagates,
even "beating the crap" out of them. My experience with quantum is that
they are fast and reliable, but for some reason I far more careful about
shocking quantums. To me, there name doesn't carry the same weight when
it comes to quality.

				Bob Pomeroy
				pomeroy@refine.enet.dec.com

(The above is not a flame against either drive. Both are excellent, I have
used both and would not pick one over the other for reliability reasons.)