Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca.wv.tek.com!pogo!bluneski
From: bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Compare Quantam and Seagate?
Message-ID: <9498@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
Date: 24 Jul 90 19:38:42 GMT
References: <3644@crash.cts.com> <9798@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville,  OR.
Lines: 14

>In article <3644@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:
>>they cost more.  The ST-157N and ST-138N are poor excuses for drives, IMHO.
>

I disagree, I have been using a Seagate 157N for nearly a year now with
absolutely no problems.  I have also had no problems for the 1.5 years my
Seagate 296N has been in service. These are very heavily used drives.
My only complaint with the 296N is that although the seek rate is high, the
transfer rate is rather low. However, the Supra Wordsync interface helps and
since it costs over $300 less than the same capacity Quantum, it is an 
inconveinince I can live with.

Bob Luneski
bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM