SPONSORED LINKS
On Tue, 20 Jun 95 08:59:29 -0400 Robert Dewar wrote:
>So that means that density wise, a 1.2 gig 2.5" disk has the same
>technology as a 3.5" 3 gig disk, and not suprisingly, they are in the
>same ballpark price wise.
>
>As a consumer, you may think in dollars/megabyte, but the manufacturing
>cost and design difficulty is related to the density of information, not
>the size of the platter.
I made the comment about an external 1GB drive as an alternative
non-portable storage option. I made a little chart like this when
I was selecting a notebook:
feature 810MB + external 1GB 1.2GB
--------- -------------------- -----------------
Price Roughly same for both
Portability 810MB portable extra 400MB portable
1 GB movable SCSI drive
Upgradability PCMCIA SCSI card extra PCMCIA slot
---------------------------------------------------------------
i.e. if a genie offered to increase the capacity of your TP hard
drive by 400MB, or to give you a PCMCIA SCSI card and a 1GB SCSI
drive, which would you pick? Most people would opt for the latter.
Just because they're not technically comparable doesn't mean we can't
compare them when justifying a purchase. New technology is irrelevant
if the manufacturing and design costs make it too expensive. That's
not to say there aren't people who *need* the extra 400MB, just that
I think IBM priced the drive ridiculously high, especially since
their wholesale price suggests they could've priced it much lower.
Of course you're right that if IBM can't keep up with demand, they
can set pretty much any price they want.
_______________________________________________________________________
|\ ______________________________________________________________________\
| | |
| | John H. Kim "Just try telling the IRS you don't feel like |
| | jokim@mit.edu 'contributing' this year come April" - Bob Dole |
| | jokim@uni.uiuc.edu on Bill Clinton's avoidance of the word "taxes." |
\|_______________________________________________________________________|