Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!radar!cadillac!hardin From: hardin@dino.cad.mcc.com (John Hardin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware Subject: Are all Teac 150M tape drives alike? Message-ID: Date: 14 Feb 91 22:16:16 GMT Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM Distribution: comp Organization: MCC CAD Program, Austin, Texas Lines: 17 What do resellers contribute to the bare tape mechanisms to distinguish the PERFORMANCE of their products? Given that they all start with the *same* mechanism and the end-users use the *same* backup software (e.g., Retrospect), then WHY, as reported in MacWorld's tape drive review (last year), should the performance vary so widely? (Granted, *some* of the units were tested with software *other* than Retrospect, but Relax Technology's 150M Teac-based unit, for example, was rated almost *half* as fast as, say, Braemar's unit (mostly due to its poor file-by-file restore performance).) Is MacWorld's test accurate (fair)? Or are there really contributions by the resellers that distinguish the performance of their respective drives? Curiously, -jwh -- John Hardin, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: hardin@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3535 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!hardin