Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekchips!tekcrl!scotth From: scotth@rocco.labs.tek.com (Scott Herzinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Re: Syquest Removables: Good or Bad? Message-ID: Date: 25 Oct 90 17:51:33 GMT References: <98@genco.uucp> Sender: news@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM Distribution: na Organization: Tektronix Inc. Lines: 26 In-reply-to: rad@genco.uucp's message of 24 Oct 90 16:58:02 GMT In article <98@genco.uucp> rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) writes: > A SyQuest is a SyQuest however no matter whom you purchase it from. > The only difference is the power supply and the formatter. I'm interested in SyQuests and have heard that there are some (at least one?) vendors that provide caching versions. PLI is one, I think. They claim sub-Quantum access times for their Turbo SyQuest product. So, it seems that one of the following must be the case: There is more than one version of the drive from SyQuest, versions with or without cacheing. PLI has implemented a cache for their SyQuest product, so again, there are variations in SyQuest products available to end-users. PLI is trying to confuse buyers by stating the minimum access time in their ads instead of average access time. The ad I saw didn't qualify the access time spec. Anyone know more about this? Scott Herzinger scotth%crl.labs.tek.com@relay.cs.net Computer Research Lab, Tektronix, Inc. PO Box 500 MS 50-662, Beaverton, OR 97077