lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) (09/03/90)
I recently picked up a copy of Computer Shopper and noticed an article in the Mac section discussing some new 3rd party drives can put 2.4 megs worth of data on a 3.5 inch drive. It claims any Macintosh can handle it (even a Mac Plus); so I assuming that since it works with a Mac Plus, it could also work with an Apple IIGS. The drive also can read 1.44 meg disks (IBM, Mac, etc. etc.) and Prodos 800k disks. The price was even reasonable (I can't remember, but it was something like $400-500). The company is called Kennect Technology; and the guys who work there are former Apple employees who developed the Apple ][ disk drive technology (or so the article says...). I'd sure like more info, and if they are compatible with the Apple II. Their address is: 120-A Albright Way, Los Gatos, CA 95030. Maybe someone up there can give 'em a call and find out. Lynda
mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) (09/03/90)
In article <4226@crash.cts.com> lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes: >[Stuff about wonder drive deleted] > >The company is called Kennect Technology; and the guys who work there are >former Apple employees who developed the Apple ][ disk drive technology (or so >the article says...). > >I'd sure like more info, and if they are compatible with the Apple II. > >Their address is: 120-A Albright Way, Los Gatos, CA 95030. Maybe someone >up there can give 'em a call and find out. > >Lynda The normal "catch" to hardware that works with the Macintosh and not the Apple II is that it requires a driver, and the company wrote one for the Macintosh. 3.5" hardware is usually fairly compatible, if it's mostly Apple-related. You can buy a SuperDrive and use it on your IIgs and IIc Plus today, I'm pretty sure -- you just can't read 1.44MB disks with it, as the firware doesn't support it. I'm also not sure if it works under GS/OS because I don't know if the AppleDisk3.5 or Unidisk3.5 driver will claim it, so you might be susceptible to not catching disk-switched conditions. -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Apple Computer, Inc. | "The opinions represented here are Developer Technical Support, Apple II | not necessarily those of Apple Group. Personal mail only, please. | Computer, Inc. Remember that." ============================================================================
unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu (The Unknown User) (09/04/90)
In response to Lynda Botez: >I recently picked up a copy of Computer Shopper and noticed an article in >the Mac section discussing some new 3rd party drives can put 2.4 megs worth >of data on a 3.5 inch drive. It claims any Macintosh can handle it (even a >Mac Plus); so I assuming that since it works with a Mac Plus, it could also >work with an Apple IIGS. If it's a SmartPort drive, it won't work since we don't have the updated SWIM chip. If it's a SCSI device it should work. BUT read on further. >The price was even reasonable (I can't remember, but it was something like >$400-500). Well, if you think that's a reasonable price for 2.4 meg drive, then I'll give you an ASTOUNDING price for a 20 meg drive! (Astounding by using a megs/$ ratio you seemed to use when comparing 800K/1.4M/2.4M drives) There's a new type of drive out. This is a trademarked term, but it seems to have been taken as the generic like Xerox and Kleenex. The drives are referred to as floptical drives. They are 20 meg FLOPPY drives. They use special floppies that cost $10-$20 apiece and the drive itself costs $700-$800 from what I was told the suggested retail would be by the two major manufacturers of the product. The manufacturers are Insite Technology and Brier Peripherals [Or Insite Peripherals and Brier Tech.. I forget!] both of San Jose Ca. I know all of this because I got 100 people together so we could buy these drives at OEM prices.. But neither company would let us do it. This was before they were released to the public too but were released to OEM companies to make products to sell to the the public. Now that I think about these drives again, I'll probably look into them some more (i.e. try to find them in mail order ads) before I get a Syquest based 45 meg removable. I was going to get one of those to spite Brier and Insite since they wouldn't sell to us, but now I realize the $/meg is much better with these drives than with Syquest drives. By the way, these drives aren't the fastest in the world but I believe they have about average millisecond times. I have some literature from the companies around here somewhere. Enough rambling.. Just basically wanted to say that -I- personally don't think that that $500/2.4 meg drive is a good price and that it won't work on the GS if it's not SCSI. -- / Apple II(GS) Forever! unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu \ \ Computer engineering student seeking a job. /
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (09/04/90)
unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu (The Unknown User) > There's a new type of drive out. This is a trademarked term, but > it seems to have been taken as the generic like Xerox and Kleenex. Xerox is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation. Kleenex is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark. Both companies VIGOROUSLY defend their trademarks. NEITHER is a generic. When a company does not defend their trademark, like "elevator" and "asprint", they lose it. Neither of the companies you cited above has become lax in the defense of their trademark. Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
kreme@nyx.UUCP (Harvey Leech) (09/05/90)
In article <Sep.3.21.51.34.1990.9847@paul.rutgers.edu> jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: >unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu (The Unknown User) >> There's a new type of drive out. This is a trademarked term, but >> it seems to have been taken as the generic like Xerox and Kleenex. >Xerox is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation. Tell me, do you say "I need to photocopy these papers." Or do you, like most people in the US say, "I need to Xerox these papers." ??? >Kleenex is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark. "I'm going to sneeze, please hand me a facial quality tissue." >Both companies VIGOROUSLY defend their trademarks. NEITHER is a >generic. He didn;t say they were generic, just that they have been TAKEN as generic, like Kleenex and Xerox, but unlike Armour All or Pepsi. People use them in common speech to refer not just to the particular brand name, but to the entire class of products. In the case of floptical, I doubt the attempt to trademark this word will work. Aren't the drives on the NeXT refered to as "flopticals?" >When a company does not defend their trademark, like "elevator" and >"asprint", they lose it. Neither of the companies you cited above >has become lax in the defense of their trademark. Once again, just because a trademark is still a trademark does not mean that people do not use it in speech as a generic term. People do not sa, "Here, Mita these papers" or "I need a Topco to blow my nose."
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (09/09/90)
By Xerox and Kleenex, I think he meant in people calling copys, xerox amd tissue paper, kleenex. /s