Talk:Jaz drive

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

1GB was BIG[edit]

" it was largely unnecessary to transport a gigabyte worth of information at a time when hard drives were still only a few gigabytes". Actually in those days, hard disks were measured in megabytes. The largest hard disk that systems based on IDE could handle were 540MeB (512MiB). The statement is kind of vague and obviously speculation so I won't edit it. But just so you know :-) Jac Goudsmit (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDE may have been limited to 540MB, but there were 2GB SCSI drives available by 1993. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.250.4 (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability[edit]

I had a Jaz drive, and experienced a lot of reliability problems. I'll try to do some research and expand this article. Blaxthos 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the click of death? That was a big problem with Jaz and Zip drives Bubble 94 is bringin' the JE££¥! 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a 1GB Jaz and had the click-of-death as well as corrupt data. It was a $600 flop! I ended up with several unusable and very expensive cartages. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symantecs[edit]

changed "Winchester hard drive" to "hard drive" as Winchester is redundant and will mean nothing to most people Bangers 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platters/Heads[edit]

The 1 GB version had two platters in the disk and four heads in the drive! 23:35, 13 Aug 2006 (CEST)

Verb tense[edit]

Should this read

The Jaz drive was a removable disk storage system

or

The Jaz drive is a removable disk storage system

The question comes up sometimes. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirects[edit]

Nice consistency here. This is a redirect from "Jaz drive" to "Iomega Jaz drive", but "Iomega Zip drive" is a redirect to "Zip drive". Huh? So the company is relevant for Jaz but not for Zip? 82.141.93.49 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

less prone to failure than zip drive[edit]

"The Jaz drive is less prone to failure than is the Zip drive.". Bullshit. That was the worse piece of technology I ever owned, and losing 1GB of data is much worse than 100MB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.124.150 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions[edit]

The article should say how big these things were, or the photograph should be replaced by one with a ruler in it. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]