Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!crash!dbw
From: dbw@crash.CTS.COM (David B. Whiteman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: MacStack information?
Message-ID: <1201@crash.CTS.COM>
Date: Wed, 10-Jun-87 09:30:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: crash.1201
Posted: Wed Jun 10 09:30:26 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 04:10:59 EDT
References: <611@entropy.ms.washington.edu> <1200@crash.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: dbw@crash.CTS.COM (David B. Whiteman)
Distribution: na
Organization: Crash TS, El Cajon, CA
Lines: 12
Keywords: MacStack hard disk, CMS

In my proceeding article I said in error that the CMS 20 is equivalent to half
of an Apple HD20 SC  I did not mean that two CMS 20's equal an Apple HD20SC,
I meant that the internal drive that is in a CMS20, a Seagate 225N, is in about
half of the Apple drives that have been sold.  Apparently those sold to the
West coast have Seagate drives, and those sold to the East coast have Rodime
drives.  The point is is that the CMS have Seagate drives which are known to
be reliable.  Furthermore I mentioned that my two friends use the software for
the Apple drive to format their CMS drive instead of using the CMS software; I
don't know whether this is against some Apple or CMS restriction, or whether the
thought police will come after you if you do this.  You do lose space -- the CMS
software formats it as an 20.5 meg drive and the Apple software only allocates
about 19 meg, but you do gain speed if you use the Apple software.