Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!pyrnj!dasys1!alexis
From: alexis@dasys1.UUCP (Alexis Rosen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: SuperMac vs. CMS media
Message-ID: <5805@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jul 88 08:34:41 GMT
Lines: 29


Recently, Mark Cookson wrote that SuperMac uses Wren III disks for their
150 MB drives while CMS did not. In addition he stated that SM uses sputtered
thin-film while CMS uses plated. This is incorrect.

The hardware in the CMS 150 is the same as SuperMac's: the Wren III  (which
is, for my money, the best drive around today).

The comparison Mark may have seen was probably between a SuperMac 150 and
a CMS *140*, which is a rodime unit, half-height instead of full, and other-
wise not nearly as nice as the Wren (50% slower avg. access; several times
slower tranfer rate).

In case anyone's interested, the CMS 150 can go inside a Mac II. It's much
cheaper than the SuperMac. On the other hand, SuperMac does bundle some nice
(and some not-so-nice) software with their drives, which might tip the
balance. I have avoided dealing with SM recently because there was no
overriding reason to buy their stuff, and I know that their financial situ-
ation, while not likely to cause them to shut down, might cause a fair amount
of instability in the near future. So far, CMS has been ultra-reliable.

Anyone have any new info on the SMS/SuperMac situation?

----
Alexis Rosen                       {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Writing from                                {harpo,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!alexis
The Big Electric Cat                  {portal,well,sun}!hoptoad/
Public UNIX                         if mail fails: ...cmcl2!cucard!cunixc!abr1
Best path: uunet!dasys1!alexis