EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/96.lightwave-0222/[e-mail] _Tue Feb 27 12:40:04 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-03-08 | 2KB

Received: from mail.webcom.com (mail.webcom.com [206.2.192.68]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.4/8.7.4-MZ) with ESMTP id MAA14283 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:40:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.webcom.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA200372957; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:42:37 -0800
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:42:37 -0800
From: Mike McBride <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: EZ vs. Zip
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Status: RO
X-Status:


   I own the Syquest EZ-135 and am very please with it's performance. It's
nearly as fast as my internal HDs, and is very well built. I had my hands on
the Zip initially and returned it without giving it a try. I just didn't
like the construction (very lightweight). The Zip has many excellent
features though, and in all fairness, should be tried out before making your
decision. For me it came down to three things:

 1. The speed. The EZ is twice as fast (13ms vs. 27ms read time).
 2. It hold 35Mbs more than the Zip, which means I can hold the same amount
of frames on three Syquest disks, as on four Zip disks. (Saves $20.00)
 3. Most of my clients and friends, who've been using Syquest removables for
years, stayed with Syquest and got the EZ.

Hope this helps, (Please let us *not* start a Zip vs. EZ war!) ;^)

Mike


<<Anybody got any input on the merits of the Easy Drive versus the Zip
drive?>>
.                 Michael McBride/CYBERGRAFX.3D
.                   [e-mail]