ZIPDRIVE - 26MEGS IN 1MIN 36 SECS IN WIN95
Mark
results in Dos & Win 95 just to show that the transfer rate described
in the book can be achieved.
Copying a 26meg zip file from a quantum fireball hard drive to
zipdrive in dos took 1 min 15 secs.
Copying the same file in win95 in the same manner took 1 min 36 secs.
I have also tried other seperate files roughly ammounting to the same
size (26meg) as a comparison with slightly faster results than above.
dennis r. gorrie
>For those having problems, I Just thought Id post my zipdrive transfer
>results in Dos & Win 95 just to show that the transfer rate described
>in the book can be achieved.
>
Why not post some details so we can try and fix our setups?
1) your computer bios setting for your parallel port (epp/ecp/?)
2) your windows 95 parallel port type (epp, ecp, bi-directional?)
3) your windows 95 par port resources (i/o 378? irq? dma?)
4) your windows 95 lpt?.vxd version and date
5) your zip driver command line options in Win95.
With this info, some of us might actually be able to improve our transfer
rates. Without it, there is not much hope for us.
Thankyou
Fred Caprilli
min 10 sec for a 25MB file. In DOS, 3 min 10 sec.
My machine is a p75 with 24MB RAM, and supposedly an enhanced parallel
port (the BIOS allows it to be set as standard, EPP or ECP). I've spent
hours trying all kinds of combinations of switches in the Win95 control
panel, including the specific instructions in the Win95 Resource Kit to
enable ECP support - no dice.
=fc=
Mark wrote:
>
> For those having problems, I Just thought Id post my zipdrive transfer
> results in Dos & Win 95 just to show that the transfer rate described
> in the book can be achieved.
>
ro...@fast.net
Was this a scsi drive or parallel?.. If parallel .. what type of port? If parallel, Do you have any idea why you
are getting better transfer rates than most under win95..??
Dani Ben-Amar
>min 10 sec for a 25MB file. In DOS, 3 min 10 sec.
>
>My machine is a p75 with 24MB RAM, and supposedly an enhanced parallel
>port (the BIOS allows it to be set as standard, EPP or ECP). I've spent
>hours trying all kinds of combinations of switches in the Win95 control
>panel, including the specific instructions in the Win95 Resource Kit to
>enable ECP support - no dice.
This is pathetic!!!
I use a Syquest EZ Drive, a *REAL* removeable drive, not a floppy
subsitute like the ZIP drive, and I copied 110 MB's in DOS in 2
minutes and 35 seconds from a Quantom Fireball (with no SMARTDRV or
cache what so ever)!!!
In Window's 95 it took 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
Now I am really happy I bought my Syquest!!
Bye,
Dani Ben-Amar
fca...@mail.telepac.pt
Ben-Amar) wrote:
>I use a Syquest EZ Drive, a *REAL* removeable drive, not a floppy
Ok your Ez drive is great but lets make test drop your ez disk form
your desk and drop a zip disk and then we will see what the best.
And this is only one aspect that shows zip as better than Ez.
BTW:ez its not realy a removable disk but a "removeable" harddisk that
if you chake it s bit, bye ez disk.
----------->>>>>>>>>>> no pain no gain <-------------------
s.m._woo
: On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 17:03:00 GMT, aben...@post.tau.ac.il (Dani
: Ben-Amar) wrote:
: >I use a Syquest EZ Drive, a *REAL* removeable drive, not a floppy
: Ok your Ez drive is great but lets make test drop your ez disk form
: your desk and drop a zip disk and then we will see what the best.
: And this is only one aspect that shows zip as better than Ez.
I've dropped more Syquest cartridges than I should have. From
dropping it on carpets, to dropping it on concrete floors, these Syquest
cartridges are rather sturdy. I don't spike these EZ catridges like I
just scored a touchdown but a fall from waist level does not affect my
EZ cartridges. I haven't had one bad sector yet. Of course there is
no doubt, the ZIP's durability far exceeds the EZ cartridge. I know
there have been reports from mags saying the EZ cartridges can die
easily, but they've survived my negligence and clumsiness with ease.
Maybe I'm just lucky. If the cartridge is kept in its case, there is
even less to worry about. No one has to be a rocket scientist to
figure out how to take care of one these cartridges. It's way easier
than caring for audio CDs and audio CDs are so fragile that a mere
scratch can be disasterous. Many people have hundreds of scratch free
CDs that they play in their CD players all the time. They all qualify
as more than compotent to the task of handling an EZ cartridge.
William Wu
: >
: >My machine is a p75 with 24MB RAM, and supposedly an enhanced parallel
: >port (the BIOS allows it to be set as standard, EPP or ECP). I've spent
: >hours trying all kinds of combinations of switches in the Win95 control
: >panel, including the specific instructions in the Win95 Resource Kit to
: >enable ECP support - no dice.
Try www.microsoft.com, you'll need two items, the ECP enhancement for
win95 and the new Zip driver...
BTW: The SCSI version of the ZIP drive is **much** faster... At least 2-3
times faster the the parallel version... It sure as heck took less then 3
mintues to copy 52.5 MB under win95. (I know this since I started
downloading a 300-325kb file, then started copying in background and the
copying finshied before the download.)
--
'Intelligence has nothing to do with politics' - Londo, Point of No Return
IJdo Dijkstra
>>Well, Mark - let us in on your secret. My transfer rate in Win 95 was 8
>>min 10 sec for a 25MB file. In DOS, 3 min 10 sec.
>>
>>My machine is a p75 with 24MB RAM, and supposedly an enhanced parallel
>>port (the BIOS allows it to be set as standard, EPP or ECP). I've spent
>>hours trying all kinds of combinations of switches in the Win95 control
>>panel, including the specific instructions in the Win95 Resource Kit to
>>enable ECP support - no dice.
>
>This is pathetic!!!
>
>I use a Syquest EZ Drive, a *REAL* removeable drive, not a floppy
>subsitute like the ZIP drive, and I copied 110 MB's in DOS in 2
>minutes and 35 seconds from a Quantom Fireball (with no SMARTDRV or
>cache what so ever)!!!
>In Window's 95 it took 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
110 Mb in 3 mins....that's roughly 35 Mb.min....
I could be wrong, but isn't the max throughput for a PP 20 Mb/min?
In other words, if this EZ is not a PP drive, it's comparing apples
with banana's.
IJdo Dijkstra aur...@xs4all.nl
----------------------------------------------
http://www.xs4all.nl/~aurora
CS student, Freelance sysadmin
dna...@nyx.net
In article <315ed71...@news.telepac.pt>, <fca...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 17:03:00 GMT, aben...@post.tau.ac.il (Dani
>Ben-Amar) wrote:
>
Except that it might not last as a standard...
Besides, many of us bought the ZIP for the exact purpose of
being a "big floppy drive"! Plus the ZIP is clearly superior
to the EZ when it comes to the speed and ease of swapping
disks in and out of the drive. I also find the speed of
the SCSI model to be quite satisfactory.
> > but lets make test drop your ez disk form
> >your desk and drop a zip disk and then we will see what the best.
> >And this is only one aspect that shows zip as better than Ez.
>
dna...@nyx.net
In article <4jnt1q$3...@hustle.rahul.net>, <S.M. Woo> wrote:
> I've dropped more Syquest cartridges than I should have. From
>dropping it on carpets, to dropping it on concrete floors, these Syquest
>cartridges are rather sturdy.
A lot of the reviewers seem to disagree with you about their durability.
>Maybe I'm just lucky. If the cartridge is kept in its case, there is
>even less to worry about. No one has to be a rocket scientist to
>figure out how to take care of one these cartridges. It's way easier
>than caring for audio CDs and audio CDs are so fragile that a mere
>scratch can be disasterous. Many people have hundreds of scratch free
>CDs that they play in their CD players all the time. They all qualify
>as more than compotent to the task of handling an EZ cartridge.
Come on, that is ridiculous! CDs are *extremely* durable.
You could drop a CD from 1000 feet and chances are it would
still play. Comparing a hard disk platter to a CD is like
comparing an egg to a tennis ball.
fca...@mail.telepac.pt
that is not what testers say but about cds they are more reailble that
a zip disk you can drop it clean it put it on water and they still
work so no comparison is possible
s.m._woo
: In article <4jnt1q$3...@hustle.rahul.net>, <S.M. Woo> wrote:
: > I've dropped more Syquest cartridges than I should have. From
: >dropping it on carpets, to dropping it on concrete floors, these Syquest
: >cartridges are rather sturdy.
: A lot of the reviewers seem to disagree with you about their durability.
I dunno about yourself, but I don't find it uncommon to sometimes
disagree with hardware/software reviews. What is it in their test that's
different from mine? They just dropped the sucker. Mine survived
everytime, their's didn't. Personal mileage will always vary. Although
they weren't testing for it, PC World and PC Magazine didn't seem to fuss
very much over an EZ's durability. Other mags are in direct contrast to
what PC World or PC Magazine have to say. It all depends on who you ask.
: Come on, that is ridiculous! CDs are *extremely* durable.
: You could drop a CD from 1000 feet and chances are it would
: still play. Comparing a hard disk platter to a CD is like
: comparing an egg to a tennis ball.
Well, if I threw a CD off a building 1000 feet tall, and upon
hitting the ground it takes a couple hops and acquires some scratches,
it will probably still play. How well it plays is based on opinion. If
it starts skipping while playing the tracks, than I personally would just
try and get another one. I wouldn't want that CD anymore. Others might
not have a problem with the audio skips. It doesn't have to be a 1000
foot drop to get a scratch deep enough for a CD to skip while playing.
Anyways, back over to the EZ cartridges. These things don't require baby
sitting. Just keep it in the case when your not using it. People keep
CDs in their jewel cases when not in use, does it require extraordinary
effort to do so for an EZ cartridge? I never said EZ cartridges are
tougher than CDs. I said that they are easier to take care of. With CDs
you gotta watch out for fingerprints, scratches, etc. EZ cartridge, just
don't drop them or better yet, keep them in their case when not in use.
Dani Ben-Amar
>
>your desk and drop a zip disk and then we will see what the best.
>And this is only one aspect that shows zip as better than Ez.
>
>BTW:ez its not realy a removable disk but a "removeable" harddisk that
>if you chake it s bit, bye ez disk.
Maybe it's just me, but I *TAKE CARE* of my media, it doesn't fall
from the desk, I don't shake it, I keep it in it's cover, neatly and
steady on the table.. I don't think that testing drops from desks is
the right test for drive performance, at least - it's not the major
performance issue! I think throughoutput is much more important!
Bye,
Dani Ben-Amar
David Albrecht
>
>>
>>I use a Syquest EZ Drive, a *REAL* removeable drive, not a floppy
>>minutes and 35 seconds from a Quantom Fireball (with no SMARTDRV or
>>cache what so ever)!!!
>>In Window's 95 it took 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
>
>110 Mb in 3 mins....that's roughly 35 Mb.min....
>
I love how whenever someone is trying to get some useful information
on this group the penis substitute fixators always have to weigh in
with an apples to oranges comparison.
Try taking you Syquest and hooking it up to virtually any PC in the
marketplace, without opening the case. The parallel port Zip is
clearly intended to address those who want ease of hookup and
portability above performance and as such only the Syquests that
were sold with a parallel port to SCSI adapter cable can be
compared. Maybe these concepts are too advanced for you but any idiot
can tell you that parallel port Zip is going to be considerably slower than
even a SCSI Zip.
If I compare a Syquest 105 to a Zip drive using random transfers in
Adaptecs EZSCSI benchmark program I get a sustained 600K/sec vs.
the Syquests 830K/sec. Faster yes, but an hardly an amount worth
caring about when I also get cartridges I can treat like carting around
a floppy rather than like a carting around a hard drive.
I use a Iomega Jaz Drive, a *REAL* removeable drive, not a floppy
subsitute like the Syquest EZ drive, and I get 1500K/S transfers using
the same EZSCSI measure as above. Almost twice the performance of
a pathetic Syquest. Plus it has 1G platters 7+ times as big as the
EZ drives.
There, do these "mine is bigger than yours discussions" really serve
any useful purpose other than the usual attempt at ego inflation from
the pathetically insecure?
David Albrecht
Andrew Cripps
WITH NO OVERHEAD.
--
Andrew Cripps
David Chapman
Do I sense a little penis envy here?
Dani Ben-Amar
wrote:
>Try taking you Syquest and hooking it up to virtually any PC in the
>marketplace, without opening the case. The parallel port Zip is
>clearly intended to address those who want ease of hookup and
>portability above performance and as such only the Syquests that
>were sold with a parallel port to SCSI adapter cable can be
>compared. Maybe these concepts are too advanced for you but any idiot
>can tell you that parallel port Zip is going to be considerably slower than
>even a SCSI Zip.
Why are you comparing the internal IDE EZ to the parallel ZIP, try
comparing both parallel versions - the EZ strikes the zip with raw
power!
Now who is the idiot ??
Stop making false attacks by comparing the wrong products!
Oh, and btw: yes, HDDs are much better than video adaptors - that's
how you sound like to me!!!
Bye,
Dani Ben-Amar
aben...@post.tau.ac.il
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2480
David Albrecht
David Chapman <davi...@compassnet.com> wrote:
>David Albrecht wrote:
>>
>> There, do these "mine is bigger than yours discussions" really serve
>> any useful purpose other than the usual attempt at ego inflation from
>> the pathetically insecure?
>>
>
Well, sorry to disappoint you but no. I won't say that I am hangup free but
that one I do not have. I do every once in a while succumb to the
temptation and get sucked into one of these content-free, mud slinging,
overblown rhetoric discussions where everyone attacks the product they
don't own and pronounces the product they do own the best thing since striped
toothpaste. I've long since learned to avoid OS and CPU based discussions
like the plague.
The Syquest and the Zip drives, however, have a fairly obvious
list of plus and minuses that is pretty easy to pick from. It is rather
stupid that those that made their choice seem to feel so defensive about it
that they can't just be happy with their decision and instead are compelled
to attack the alternatives.
In any case, I do believe I have recovered my equilibrium and having more
than said my piece on this particular issue I think I shall lump the
Zip vs. Syquest threads in with OSes and CPUs and let the usual
mindless ranters do their thing.
David Albrecht