Zip Drive Vs Ez 135

From: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca (F. Neumann) Subject: Comparison of Zip and EZ-135 drives This is the second (and hopefully the last!) revision of my comparison of the Zip and EZ drives. I corrected a very confusing typo (thanks to Dan Hoefferth for pointing it out) and I removed the rumour about Zips causing problems with internal CD-ROM drives. (I've had many messages from people working with such configurations telling me they had encountered no problems whatsoever.) Zip vs. EZ-135: A Comparison ============================ version 1.1 This is a comparison of two low-capacity low-cost mass storage devices, Iomega's Zip drive and SyQuest's EZ-135 drive. The comparison is based on opionions of users of both drives sent to me by e-mail, and also on some information pulled from www pages. It was compiled by Florin Neumann <florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca>. This file is formatted as setext. It can be read with any text editor, but a setext-compatible browser, such as Akif Eyler's EasyView, is required for full benefits of the setext format. Summary ------- If ease of use, portability, cross-platform communication, and availability are important, then Zip would be the better choice. If speed, cartridge capacity, and flexibility in integration with other SCSI devices are important, and if you're willing to put up with waiting for back-ordered cartridges, and if megabyte/$ is important to you, then the EZ would be the better choice. Putting it in another way, if I had a PowerBook or a low-end system, and/or I wanted the user-friendliest drive, and/or I wanted to make sure that I could exchange data with more people, then I'd get a Zip. But if I had a higher-end system, with several devices on the SCSI bus and I wanted to keep all my options open as to how to id them, and if I really cared about speed and capacity, but I didn't mind having to go through a convoluted ritual each time I swapped a disk, then I'd get the EZ. Personal Opinion ---------------- After reading all the opinions sent to me, and after trying out both drives at a local dealer, I decided on the Zip drive. The main reasons were: (a) price (the drive is cca. US$20 cheaper; the cartridges cca. US$5 cheaper); (b) availability (no dealer I contacted had EZ cartridges in stock; I had no real trouble finding Zip cartridges); (c) convenience (mounting/dismounting a disk on the EZ is a real hassle compared to the Zip, which behaves just like a floppy). (d) better software driver (not only it uses less memory, but it is also present as an application, which allows for mounting the disks even when the Mac is booted with extensions off). As to the Zip's shortcomings, this is what I think: (1) Capacity (96M vs 126 of the EZ). Sure, larger disks would be nice, but one can't have everything. (2) Speed. Doesn't bother me; I intend to use it mainly as a back-up device, but it can be used as boot device or to run applications. (3) SCSI ID. N…