Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!mead.qal.berkeley.edu!lauac
From: lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Rodimes?
Message-ID: <23233@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 18 Apr 89 03:51:31 GMT
References: <911@tasis.utas.oz> <17207@cup.portal.com> <8476@polya.Stanford.EDU> <99482@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 34

In article <99482@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> wert@sun.UUCP (Robert Scott Comer) writes:
>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

Not just personal opinion, although I know you weren't referring to my
post.  Rodimes have a generally higher failure rate than other brands.
The Jasmine thing really brought it out to light.

I'm not saying to trash a drive you already have.  I'm saying that
people who buy these drives new had better think it over twice.

Actually, what you are espousing is anecdotal evidence.  That doesn't
really help the person who wants an overview of the hard drive
situation.

Flame away, but e-mail only please.

--- Alex
UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!qal.berkeley.edu!lauac
INTERNET: lauac%qal.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
FIDONET: Alex.Lau@bmug.fidonet.org (1:161/444)