Iomega ZIP or Syquest EZ135 ???
Sunil Mishra
Hi,
I am considering adding a removable (& portable) drive to my PC for
easy transfer of data between work and home. I am considering either
Syquest EZ135 or Iomega ZIP drive. I would like to know, which one
is supported by Slackware 3.0 or 3.1 (I use 3.0 now)? If both are
supported, which one would be a better choice? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Sunil
Evan Jeffrey
Sunil Mishra (mis...@simpler.hpl.hp.com) wrote:
: I am considering adding a removable (& portable) drive to my PC for
The ZIP 100 is supported by the kernel series 2.0.x, as well as some of the
later 1.3.x series. I am running Slackware 3.0 w/ a kernel upgrade, and it
works fine--make sure to read the /Documentation/Changes BEFORE compiling,
you must upgrade some other stuff, too. Since slackware 3.1 has kernel
2.0.0 it should work. I seem to remember seing a patch for the EZ135,
though it is not a part of the source tree. Unfortunately, I saw it while
surfing for info on the ZIP with linux, so I don't know where. In any case,
I would recommend the ZIP. I've got one and it works great.
Evan Jeffrey
erje...@artsci.wustl.edu
Ganbo DENG
Evan Jeffrey wrote:
>
> Sunil Mishra (mis...@simpler.hpl.hp.com) wrote:
>
> : I am considering adding a removable (& portable) drive to my PC for
> : easy transfer of data between work and home. I am considering either
> : Syquest EZ135 or Iomega ZIP drive. I would like to know, which one
> : is supported by Slackware 3.0 or 3.1 (I use 3.0 now)? If both are
> : supported, which one would be a better choice? Thanks in advance.
>
It is said that the transfert rate of a SCSI ZIP drive is 1Mo/S, while
that of a SCSI Syquest EZ135 driver is 2.4Mo/S. Can anyone confirmes
this?
Grant Guenther
Sunil Mishra <mis...@simpler.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>I am considering adding a removable (& portable) drive to my PC for
>easy transfer of data between work and home. I am considering either
>Syquest EZ135 or Iomega ZIP drive. I would like to know, which one
>is supported by Slackware 3.0 or 3.1 (I use 3.0 now)? If both are
>supported, which one would be a better choice? Thanks in advance.
All models of both drives are supported.
SCSI models are supported like any SCSI disk, and the IDE models also
work without special support. The parallel port versions are supported,
but not yet for EPP modes, so performance is low.
For performance, choose SCSI. For portability, there are some advantages
to the parallel versions. The IDE versions are internal only.
For the ZIP, there is also a ZipTool program that accesses some of the
vendor specific functions - for the SCSI and parallel versions, it does
not work (yet) with the IDE version.
The EZ135 is, I believe, out of production, as it has been replaced with
the EZ230 which is also supported by Linux in all its versions.
There's a lot of information about the ZIP drive at
http://www.torque.net/zip.html
And some information about the *parallel* version of the EZ drives (including
the driver, which didn't make it into the official 2.0 kernel) can be found at
http://www.torque.net/ez135.html
As to which one is better - there was an incredibly acrid flame war in one
of the PC newsgroups a year or so ago - lets try to avoid that here. You
know now that both products are supported by Linux to the same extent,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant R. Guenther gr...@torque.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Thennarangam
Ganbo DENG <ganbo...@ec-nantes.fr> wrote:
>It is said that the transfert rate of a SCSI ZIP drive is 1Mo/S, while
>that of a SCSI Syquest EZ135 driver is 2.4Mo/S. Can anyone confirmes
>this?
From the data I have (published in the weekly computer section of
Straits Times -local nespaper )
Iomega Zip, SCSI -- 1Mbps
Iomega Zip,Parallel port -- 420kbps
Syquest EZ135 - SCSI - 4 Mbps
Syquest EZFlyer 230 - SCSI - 1.25 - 2.4 Mbps
Syquest EZFlyer 230 -PP - 1.25 Mbps
Suresh/
Adam Morris
In article <541nq5$o...@newsreader.wustl.edu>,
ejef...@eliot82.wustl.edu (Evan Jeffrey) wrote:
>The ZIP 100 is supported by the kernel series 2.0.x, as well as some of the
>later 1.3.x series. I am running Slackware 3.0 w/ a kernel upgrade, and it
Actually, the driver (0.26) in the 2.0.X kernel has been modified slightly to
work with 1.2.13... I know you can get the stuff required for slackware 3.0
from www.torque.net.
Adam
Bear Giles
You didn't state whether you're using the parallel port or SCSI
version.
The tradeoffs are:
Parallel port:
+ everyone has a parallel port
- s..l..o..w... An article in comp.os.linux.hardware suggested that
the typical performance with "stock" drivers is 1.5 MB/_minute_,
although I might have misread that. Numbers from FDC-based tape
backup units suggest that 1.5 MB/min might be reasonable.
- other devices want the parallel port (e.g., printers, quick cams,
some tape drives)
- multiple parallel ports can be a pain. (One of my systems has
two parallel ports since it has both a laser jet and color ink jet
printer)
- requires special drivers for each device.
SCSI port:
+ fast. My EZ-135 quotes a transfer rate of 2 MB/sec sustained,
4 MB/sec burst. This is _much_ faster than the parallel version.
+ extensible. You can easily add additional devices.
+ standard interface.
- expensive. A decent SCSI controller card will probably cost ~$150;
SCSI cables are more expensive than "comparable" parallel port
cables.
More on the speed: I know these numbers might be surprising, but
remember that SCSI protocols are designed around the fact that a
computer sits on each end. Parallel protocols, on the other hand,
were originally based on a computer driving a much dumber printer.
As to ZIP or EZ135... I bought a EZ135 drive two days ago. I haven't
had a chance to check it out yet, since I'm waiting on an aftermarket
MD50M-C50M SCSI-II cable, but I anticipate no problems.
The reasons I choose EZ135 over ZIP are:
- cost: my EZ135 cost $120, ZIP drives cost $200.[1][2]
- since the EZ135 includes a disk, I can effectively buy
(and use, with SCSI) a second EZ135 drive for the cost
of a single ZIP drive. That gives me an effective (if
split) removable capacity of 270 MB!
- compatibility: the EZ230 can read EZ135 disks. I don't
think an analogous situation exists with the ZIP drives.
(BTW, an EZ230 costs ~$300). ZIP drives are becoming
popular enough that they'll be around for a long time,
but I would rather have an upgrade path where I replace
an aging EZ135 with an EZ230 (or better) than one where
I replace one ZIP with another.
- EZ135 disks store 35% more than ZIP drives.
[1] Using the SCSI version of either drive also required a
MD50M-C50M cable since this was my first external SCSI
device. That set me back an extra $55, but I would have
incurred that cost for either drive since I had already
decided on a SCSI device.
[2] Some stores are advertising a "$50" rebate on Epson(?) ZIP
drives, but the sticker says the rebate expired 9/30/96....
--
Bear Giles To treat your facts with imagination is one thing,
be...@indra.com but to imagine your facts is another.
-- John Burroughs
Jerry Gardner
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:31:43 GMT, Bear Giles <be...@indra.com> wrote:
>[1] Using the SCSI version of either drive also required a
> MD50M-C50M cable since this was my first external SCSI
> device. That set me back an extra $55, but I would have
> incurred that cost for either drive since I had already
> decided on a SCSI device.
Why not mount the EZ135 internally? Just remove the drive from the plastic case.
It's a 3-1/2" device with a standard power and SCSI connectors inside. I did and
it works fine.
--
Jerry Gardner | Bill Clinton has all the steely resolve of a
(nj...@ccnet.com) | kamakazi pilot on his 37th mission.
Mike Dowling
>>> On 1 Nov 1996 05:15:31 GMT, nj...@voyager.ccnet.com (Jerry Gardner) said:
Jerry> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 04:31:43 GMT, Bear Giles <be...@indra.com>
Jerry> wrote:
>> [1] Using the SCSI version of either drive also required a MD50M-C50M
>> cable since this was my first external SCSI device. That set me back
>> an extra $55, but I would have incurred that cost for either drive
>> since I had already decided on a SCSI device.
Jerry> Why not mount the EZ135 internally? Just remove the drive from
Jerry> the plastic case. It's a 3-1/2" device with a standard power and
Jerry> SCSI connectors inside. I did and it works fine.
Actually, I'm glad I have an external EZI-drive. The reason is that I
can change the SCSI ID of this device by merely pushing a bottom. I set
my hard drive to SCSI ID 2, and CD ROM to SCSI ID 3, leaving IDs 0 and 3
free. Setting the ID of the EZI-drive therefore means that I boot from
the hard drive with the EZI-drive as /dev/sdb, while setting the ID of
the EZI-drive to 0 means that I can boot from it. This flexibility is
lost with an internal version, as you need to open your computer, and
poke around with a screwdriver to change SCSI IDs.
Cheers,
Mike