Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!oliveb!sun!toaster!wert
From: wert@toaster.Sun.COM (Robert Scott Comer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Rodimes?
Message-ID: <99482@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 17 Apr 89 21:20:19 GMT
References: <911@tasis.utas.oz> <17207@cup.portal.com> <8476@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: wert@sun.UUCP (Robert Scott Comer)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 22


Of course, this is also just one person's opinion, perhaps with a limitted
number of drives (maybe even one) of a certain fixed type. For example,
just because the Rodime 70 mb didn't work in his case, doesn't mean that
Rodime 140+ drives are bad or won't work, or that a rodime 70 mb drive
on an SE with modern System won't work.

I have had been involved with the rodime 140+, and had nothing but good
come of it. It could handle all manner of blind and unblind transfers
from my SE up to 128 blocks at a time. I didn't try more than that, but
there is no reason to believe that it wouldn't work.

Also, I have had good luck with Seagate st277 and st255.

What this fellow is promoting is personal opinions, not researched
fact. He didn't like those drives or those manufactures, and he is
trying to pass this off as object analysis of those drives or manuf.

There are a few people with these drives wondering if they shouldn't trash
them: don't be silly. If it works for you, leave it alone.

scott out