Zip-250 USB vs. CD-RW

Brad · Oct 18, 1999

I just received my new Zip250 with both USB and PCMCIA (Zip-UP250) and ran some prelimiary speed tests on my desktop to determine if it was faster than a CD-RW. My reason for buying the Zip250 was to offload my laptop during an extended photoshoot, and I was considering the option of either a CD-RW or the Zip250. Although the inital cost of the CD-RW is higher (about $300+ for a PCMCIA 2X write model), this would be made up in the relatively inexpensive media, since blank CD-R's are about $1 each for a 10-pak now, and each holds about 550MB (formatted). The new Zip250 USB & PCMCIA was about $147+ at eCost.com, but the price of the media was somewhat more expensive at about $12.50/disk in a 6-pack (also at eCost.com) with substantially less capacity (about 238MB, formatted). However, the speed difference to offload data turned out to be significant (see below). The test set was a group of mostly JPEG and a few bitmap files from various sources that collectively numbered 3,970 and occupied about 236.5MB. The test hardware was a Compaq Presario Pentium II 300MHz, with a 2X (write) CD-RW drive and the Iomega Zip250 (USB). The total file size was chosen based on the capacity of the Zip250 drive, and the results might haved varied slightly if the test data included files totalling 500MB or more (which would have required 3 Zip250 disks).

Three methods of transferring the files were used to find the fastest way to move the data off the computer. The first method was a simple file copy from drive C: to drive D: (CD-RW) or drive E: (Zip250). In the second method, the PKZIP utility (MS-DOS) was used to create a ".zip" file on drive C: first, and the resulting file (220MB) was then copied to the drives. For the third method, the PKZIP utility was again used, but the output ".zip" file was created on the target drive each time.

Method 1 (file by file copy):
Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*

Comments: * dozed off after an hour waiting for it to finish. Lot's of "thrashing" for both drives as the disk RW heads had to keep moving between creating the file and updating the disk directory. Copying data this way seems like a good way to wear out ANY disk drive!

Method 2 (create ".zip" file and copy the archive):
Source: Drive C:, 1 file (test.zip), 220MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 12 min, 38 sec (26 min, 4 sec).
Time to copy to CD-R: 42 min, 15 sec (55 min, 41 sec).

Comments: Time to create the ".zip" file was 13 min, 26 sec, with lots of disk "thrashing" on drive C:. This time should be added to the above times for a true idea of the time required to offload a group of images, so the total time appears in parenthesis). Note that the time to copy the single 220MB file to the Zip250 was significantly less than the CD-R, but based on other reports (see c~net) the USB Zip250 is slower than a SCSI Zip250.

Method 3 (Create ".zip" file on destination drive):
Source: Drive C:. 3970 files, 236.5MB --> output: 220MB archive
Time to create on Zip250: 22 min.
Time to create on CD-R: 43 min, 49 sec.

Comments: Very little "thrashing" on Drive C: and virtually none on the destination (Zip or CD-R). Seems to be the most efficient way of offloading files.

Conclusion: My laptop contains both USB and PCMCIA, and the tests did not include the copy time via PCMCIA because the cable isn't available yet from Iomega. I don't care to wait around for the CD-RW to finish it's task when offloading files (and this was only 236MB!), so I think I'm going to keep the Zip250 drive. I wish it were faster, the disks were cheaper, and that it's capacity was closer to the IBM 340MB microdrive which I'll be using, but it's a pretty good alternative to buying another laptop, or installing a larger drive in my current one. Plus, because it's USB, I can easily move it from system to system without much hassle. Now if Iomega could just fit it with a CF reader and a battery like the Clik! drive, they could make a great drive into an indispensable product for digicam owners everywhere.

Derek W.

Amy · Oct 18, 1999

Well, for purpose of backing up or circulation among other PCs, a CD is more versatile. A CD can be read by almost all machine with a CD-ROM but not many computers have 250mb Zip. Even in future, I think a 100mb zip is enough for carrying files from office to home.
Amy

Derek W. said:
I just received my new Zip250 with both USB and PCMCIA (Zip-UP250) and
ran some prelimiary speed tests on my desktop to determine if it was
faster than a CD-RW. My reason for buying the Zip250 was to offload my
laptop during an extended photoshoot, and I was considering the option of
either a CD-RW or the Zip250. Although the inital cost of the CD-RW is
higher (about $300+ for a PCMCIA 2X write model), this would be made up
in the relatively inexpensive media, since blank CD-R's are about $1 each
for a 10-pak now, and each holds about 550MB (formatted). The new Zip250
USB & PCMCIA was about $147+ at eCost.com, but the price of the media was
somewhat more expensive at about $12.50/disk in a 6-pack (also at
eCost.com) with substantially less capacity (about 238MB, formatted).
However, the speed difference to offload data turned out to be
significant (see below). The test set was a group of mostly JPEG and a
few bitmap files from various sources that collectively numbered 3,970
and occupied about 236.5MB. The test hardware was a Compaq Presario
Pentium II 300MHz, with a 2X (write) CD-RW drive and the Iomega Zip250
(USB). The total file size was chosen based on the capacity of the
Zip250 drive, and the results might haved varied slightly if the test
data included files totalling 500MB or more (which would have required 3
Zip250 disks).

Three methods of transferring the files were used to find the fastest way
to move the data off the computer. The first method was a simple file
copy from drive C: to drive D: (CD-RW) or drive E: (Zip250). In the
second method, the PKZIP utility (MS-DOS) was used to create a ".zip"
file on drive C: first, and the resulting file (220MB) was then copied to
the drives. For the third method, the PKZIP utility was again used, but
the output ".zip" file was created on the target drive each time.

Method 1 (file by file copy):
Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*
Comments: * dozed off after an hour waiting for it to finish. Lot's of
"thrashing" for both drives as the disk RW heads had to keep moving
between creating the file and updating the disk directory. Copying data
this way seems like a good way to wear out ANY disk drive!

Method 2 (create ".zip" file and copy the archive):
Source: Drive C:, 1 file (test.zip), 220MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 12 min, 38 sec (26 min, 4 sec).
Time to copy to CD-R: 42 min, 15 sec (55 min, 41 sec).
Comments: Time to create the ".zip" file was 13 min, 26 sec, with lots of
disk "thrashing" on drive C:. This time should be added to the above
times for a true idea of the time required to offload a group of images,
so the total time appears in parenthesis). Note that the time to copy
the single 220MB file to the Zip250 was significantly less than the CD-R,
but based on other reports (see c~net) the USB Zip250 is slower than a
SCSI Zip250.

Method 3 (Create ".zip" file on destination drive):
Source: Drive C:. 3970 files, 236.5MB --> output: 220MB archive
Time to create on Zip250: 22 min.
Time to create on CD-R: 43 min, 49 sec.
Comments: Very little "thrashing" on Drive C: and virtually none on the
destination (Zip or CD-R). Seems to be the most efficient way of
offloading files.

Conclusion: My laptop contains both USB and PCMCIA, and the tests did
not include the copy time via PCMCIA because the cable isn't available
yet from Iomega. I don't care to wait around for the CD-RW to finish
it's task when offloading files (and this was only 236MB!), so I think
I'm going to keep the Zip250 drive. I wish it were faster, the disks
were cheaper, and that it's capacity was closer to the IBM 340MB
microdrive which I'll be using, but it's a pretty good alternative to
buying another laptop, or installing a larger drive in my current one.
Plus, because it's USB, I can easily move it from system to system
without much hassle. Now if Iomega could just fit it with a CF reader
and a battery like the Clik! drive, they could make a great drive into an
indispensable product for digicam owners everywhere.

Derek W.

Robert11970 · Oct 18, 1999

Very interesting study. I am grateful for the info. I've been studying this storage situation intensely and this kind of info is very useful to me. I'm formally trained in Computer Science (primarly hardware) and specs listed for device X or Z never quite equal "real world" perfomance.

I've been putting together (in my mind and using Excel) a storage setup for the digital SLR I will be purchasing.

I like the idea of the CDs because they can be read between just about any computer, including Macs if stored as TIFFs. Installing drivers on other systems is not necessay. They are comparitively slow though. Two pluses for CDs is their cheap cost and large storage capacity. The CDs are tough (very archival). If you have kids, you've probably witnessed many finger printed CDs which work just fine!

Just don't scratch the foil side. That kills em.

Iomega bought SyQuest. When they did, they killed off a lot of superior external storage solutions that were superior to what is presently available. SyQuest storage was around when Iomega was a mere dream. The SparQ (Spark) drive at 1 Gig was great. I had one and never had problem one with it. I got rid of it because Iomega quit making storage medium for it. Now, there's talk of the drive and medium being reintroduced.

Another solution, would be an external SCSI hard drive. Now, that'd be fast!! Problem with that, is that moving data from the external SCSI hard drive to a Pre-press or a clients office would open up a whole new can of worms.

A T3 connection would be neat!

You could upload your images to your desktop or the pre-press or your clients while you slept! Of course, you may have some nightmares regarding the phone bill!

Overall, I lean towards the CD. An 8X at $500+, while expensive with 10MB transfer and write rate (Plextor SCSI) would not be too awfully slow when compared to the Zips. Eventually, the very low cost of CDs and their convienience between platforms gives them the edge for me. Do all work on a second fast hard drive (of course) and move the info by your chosen file transfer method to a CD. Plextors are state of the art. Their life expectancy is very very high.

I don't see a problem with using the 250MB Zip between computers, as all you need is a driver installed. Of course, the other computer would need a USB or PCMCIA interface if you contemplate moving the Zip drive to another system somewhere else.

Derek W. said:
I just received my new Zip250 with both USB and PCMCIA (Zip-UP250) and
ran some prelimiary speed tests on my desktop to determine if it was
faster than a CD-RW. My reason for buying the Zip250 was to offload my
laptop during an extended photoshoot, and I was considering the option of
either a CD-RW or the Zip250. Although the inital cost of the CD-RW is
higher (about $300+ for a PCMCIA 2X write model), this would be made up
in the relatively inexpensive media, since blank CD-R's are about $1 each
for a 10-pak now, and each holds about 550MB (formatted). The new Zip250
USB & PCMCIA was about $147+ at eCost.com, but the price of the media was
somewhat more expensive at about $12.50/disk in a 6-pack (also at
eCost.com) with substantially less capacity (about 238MB, formatted).
However, the speed difference to offload data turned out to be
significant (see below). The test set was a group of mostly JPEG and a
few bitmap files from various sources that collectively numbered 3,970
and occupied about 236.5MB. The test hardware was a Compaq Presario
Pentium II 300MHz, with a 2X (write) CD-RW drive and the Iomega Zip250
(USB). The total file size was chosen based on the capacity of the
Zip250 drive, and the results might haved varied slightly if the test
data included files totalling 500MB or more (which would have required 3
Zip250 disks).

Three methods of transferring the files were used to find the fastest way
to move the data off the computer. The first method was a simple file
copy from drive C: to drive D: (CD-RW) or drive E: (Zip250). In the
second method, the PKZIP utility (MS-DOS) was used to create a ".zip"
file on drive C: first, and the resulting file (220MB) was then copied to
the drives. For the third method, the PKZIP utility was again used, but
the output ".zip" file was created on the target drive each time.

Method 1 (file by file copy):
Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*
Comments: * dozed off after an hour waiting for it to finish. Lot's of
"thrashing" for both drives as the disk RW heads had to keep moving
between creating the file and updating the disk directory. Copying data
this way seems like a good way to wear out ANY disk drive!

Method 2 (create ".zip" file and copy the archive):
Source: Drive C:, 1 file (test.zip), 220MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 12 min, 38 sec (26 min, 4 sec).
Time to copy to CD-R: 42 min, 15 sec (55 min, 41 sec).
Comments: Time to create the ".zip" file was 13 min, 26 sec, with lots of
disk "thrashing" on drive C:. This time should be added to the above
times for a true idea of the time required to offload a group of images,
so the total time appears in parenthesis). Note that the time to copy
the single 220MB file to the Zip250 was significantly less than the CD-R,
but based on other reports (see c~net) the USB Zip250 is slower than a
SCSI Zip250.

Method 3 (Create ".zip" file on destination drive):
Source: Drive C:. 3970 files, 236.5MB --> output: 220MB archive
Time to create on Zip250: 22 min.
Time to create on CD-R: 43 min, 49 sec.
Comments: Very little "thrashing" on Drive C: and virtually none on the
destination (Zip or CD-R). Seems to be the most efficient way of
offloading files.

Conclusion: My laptop contains both USB and PCMCIA, and the tests did
not include the copy time via PCMCIA because the cable isn't available
yet from Iomega. I don't care to wait around for the CD-RW to finish
it's task when offloading files (and this was only 236MB!), so I think
I'm going to keep the Zip250 drive. I wish it were faster, the disks
were cheaper, and that it's capacity was closer to the IBM 340MB
microdrive which I'll be using, but it's a pretty good alternative to
buying another laptop, or installing a larger drive in my current one.
Plus, because it's USB, I can easily move it from system to system
without much hassle. Now if Iomega could just fit it with a CF reader
and a battery like the Clik! drive, they could make a great drive into an
indispensable product for digicam owners everywhere.

Derek W.

Brad · Oct 19, 1999

Robert said:
Very interesting study. I am grateful for the info. I've been studying
this storage situation intensely and this kind of info is very useful to
me. I'm formally trained in Computer Science (primarly hardware) and
specs listed for device X or Z never quite equal "real world" perfomance.

True. For this test I actually sat in front of the computer with a stopwatch to time it.

Robert11970 said:
I've been putting together (in my mind and using Excel) a storage setup
for the digital SLR I will be purchasing.

I'm getting a D1 myself. If I don't get it soon, I may go with an F100 and a Nikon Coolscan 2000 (2700x2700 optical) scanner instead. Of course that would render the Zip250 useless for my purposes.

Robert11970 said:
I like the idea of the CDs because they can be read between just about
any computer, including Macs if stored as TIFFs. Installing drivers on
other systems is not necessay. They are comparitively slow though. Two
pluses for CDs is their cheap cost and large storage capacity. The CDs
are tough (very archival). If you have kids, you've probably witnessed
many finger printed CDs which work just fine! Just don't scratch the
foil side. That kills em.

I agree. I intend to use CDs for archiving once I get back home, but since my Toshiba laptop hard drive is only 4.3GB (3.3 avail after photoshop and Office 97 loaded), it wouldn't take much to fill it up with raw images from the D1. The laptop will be carried with me to offload the IBM 340MB microdrive as it fills. but at the end of the day, the laptop will need to be offloaded in preparation for the next. It can take quite a long time to offload 2-3GB of data, and I don't want to spend the entire evening waiting for the CD-RW to finish. I'm not sure the "8x" number is truely going to cut your time down to 1/4 of the 2x time. After the "Lexar" compact flash ad campaign with their claims of 8x, I am extremely skeptical of anyone's speed claims (Lexar advertises their compact flash as "8x", which is misleading. The "8x" refers to the fact that the disk controller they use is supposed to be (their claim) eight times faster than the disk controller found in "ordinary" compact flash. In real world tests (see Imaging Resource) recording an image (writing to the CF) wasn't even twice as fast (overall average).)

So for me, the added speed of the Zip250 can make a big difference when I'm on the road. But once I return, then the Zip disks will, in turn, be offloaded onto CDs so that I can re-use them for the next shoot. I personally think Zip disks are too expensive for backing up a hard drive, and use the CD-RW for that, with re-writable disks. It takes a long time, but CD-RW media is only about $2/disk now and when I'm home, the speed isn't as important.

Robert11970 said:
Iomega bought SyQuest. When they did, they killed off a lot of superior
external storage solutions that were superior to what is presently
available. SyQuest storage was around when Iomega was a mere dream. The
SparQ (Spark) drive at 1 Gig was great. I had one and never had problem
one with it. I got rid of it because Iomega quit making storage medium
for it. Now, there's talk of the drive and medium being reintroduced.

I've heard that a lot of people had problems with the SparQ drives. If they re-introduce them, I hope they improve their reliability. Even so, I think there are WAY too many different form factors for portable disk storage. I originally bought a Zip100 about 18 months ago and promptly returned it (it was a PP version, and was as slow as my floppy drive; also, the "Superdisk" was coming out, and I thought it might be a better investment, since the drives were compatible with ordinary 3.5" disks. As it turned out, I didn't buy the SD either).

Robert11970 said:
Another solution, would be an external SCSI hard drive. Now, that'd be
fast!! Problem with that, is that moving data from the external SCSI hard
drive to a Pre-press or a clients office would open up a whole new can
of worms.

I have seen a portable external hard drive "package" that you could buy for about $100 (without drive). Basically, it was a drive case and power supply with a USB interface. The idea is that you buy the kit, and then install whatever size drive you can afford -- maybe a 10GB. Since it's USB, it'll work with almost any computer. Optionally, you can buy a connector kit to install on the drive itself that will allow you to quickly unplug one drive and plug in another. It's kind of a nice idea, but who wants to keep track of a bunch of hard drives?

Robert11970 said:
A T3 connection would be neat! You could upload your images to your
desktop or the pre-press or your clients while you slept! Of course, you
may have some nightmares regarding the phone bill!

A phone transfer is out of the question for me, except for maybe a few images.

Robert11970 said:
Overall, I lean towards the CD. An 8X at $500+, while expensive with 10MB
transfer and write rate (Plextor SCSI) would not be too awfully slow when
compared to the Zips. Eventually, the very low cost of CDs and their
convienience between platforms gives them the edge for me. Do all work on
a second fast hard drive (of course) and move the info by your chosen
file transfer method to a CD. Plextors are state of the art. Their life
expectancy is very very high.

Another consideration is size/weight. The new Zip250 is extremely small at about 1/2" wider than a zip disk and about 3 times as thick and twice as long. It and it's cables will easily fit in the same case as the laptop. How big is the Plextor and would it require it's own carrying case (more luggage)? Of course, Iomega could end this debate once and for all if they would just attach a CF reader and battery to the Zip250 - and I wouldn't need to carry the laptop with me, either! I really liked the portability of the Clik! drive for offloading CFs, but 40MB is woefully inadequate.

Robert11970 said:
I don't see a problem with using the 250MB Zip between computers, as all
you need is a driver installed. Of course, the other computer would need
a USB or PCMCIA interface if you contemplate moving the Zip drive to
another system somewhere else.

Well, the CD-RW's that I was considering also would have required either a USB or PCMCIA. Of course, I already have a DVD, CD-R and CD-RW in my home computer, so it's not like I would have to move the CD-RW between systems. When I want to move the images to another computer, I'll just use the CD's that I intend to make as soon as I get home anyway.

For travelling photography, I think I'll still stick with the Zip250. If all I had to worry about was less than 3GB of images for each trip, then I wouldn't even bother with the Zip.

Derek W.

Brad · Oct 19, 1999

Amy Lee said:
Well, for purpose of backing up or circulation among other PCs, a CD is
more versatile. A CD can be read by almost all machine with a CD-ROM but
not many computers have 250mb Zip. Even in future, I think a 100mb zip is
enough for carrying files from office to home.
Amy

The Zip250 is just an interim storage solution while on the road. Once back at home, the images would be transferred to CD for distribution.

Derek W.

Bob · Oct 19, 1999

I purchase my CDRW from CompUSA for $99 after rebate. Don't even think about it just buy it. You can backup, copy and create anything. You can buy a CD-r disk for .10 each . You can buy a CDRW disk for .25 each. You can't pass this up. The price is great.

Bob

Derek W. said:
I just received my new Zip250 with both USB and PCMCIA (Zip-UP250) and
ran some prelimiary speed tests on my desktop to determine if it was
faster than a CD-RW. My reason for buying the Zip250 was to offload my
laptop during an extended photoshoot, and I was considering the option of
either a CD-RW or the Zip250. Although the inital cost of the CD-RW is
higher (about $300+ for a PCMCIA 2X write model), this would be made up
in the relatively inexpensive media, since blank CD-R's are about $1 each
for a 10-pak now, and each holds about 550MB (formatted). The new Zip250
USB & PCMCIA was about $147+ at eCost.com, but the price of the media was
somewhat more expensive at about $12.50/disk in a 6-pack (also at
eCost.com) with substantially less capacity (about 238MB, formatted).
However, the speed difference to offload data turned out to be
significant (see below). The test set was a group of mostly JPEG and a
few bitmap files from various sources that collectively numbered 3,970
and occupied about 236.5MB. The test hardware was a Compaq Presario
Pentium II 300MHz, with a 2X (write) CD-RW drive and the Iomega Zip250
(USB). The total file size was chosen based on the capacity of the
Zip250 drive, and the results might haved varied slightly if the test
data included files totalling 500MB or more (which would have required 3
Zip250 disks).

Three methods of transferring the files were used to find the fastest way
to move the data off the computer. The first method was a simple file
copy from drive C: to drive D: (CD-RW) or drive E: (Zip250). In the
second method, the PKZIP utility (MS-DOS) was used to create a ".zip"
file on drive C: first, and the resulting file (220MB) was then copied to
the drives. For the third method, the PKZIP utility was again used, but
the output ".zip" file was created on the target drive each time.

Method 1 (file by file copy):
Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*
Comments: * dozed off after an hour waiting for it to finish. Lot's of
"thrashing" for both drives as the disk RW heads had to keep moving
between creating the file and updating the disk directory. Copying data
this way seems like a good way to wear out ANY disk drive!

Method 2 (create ".zip" file and copy the archive):
Source: Drive C:, 1 file (test.zip), 220MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 12 min, 38 sec (26 min, 4 sec).
Time to copy to CD-R: 42 min, 15 sec (55 min, 41 sec).
Comments: Time to create the ".zip" file was 13 min, 26 sec, with lots of
disk "thrashing" on drive C:. This time should be added to the above
times for a true idea of the time required to offload a group of images,
so the total time appears in parenthesis). Note that the time to copy
the single 220MB file to the Zip250 was significantly less than the CD-R,
but based on other reports (see c~net) the USB Zip250 is slower than a
SCSI Zip250.

Method 3 (Create ".zip" file on destination drive):
Source: Drive C:. 3970 files, 236.5MB --> output: 220MB archive
Time to create on Zip250: 22 min.
Time to create on CD-R: 43 min, 49 sec.
Comments: Very little "thrashing" on Drive C: and virtually none on the
destination (Zip or CD-R). Seems to be the most efficient way of
offloading files.

Conclusion: My laptop contains both USB and PCMCIA, and the tests did
not include the copy time via PCMCIA because the cable isn't available
yet from Iomega. I don't care to wait around for the CD-RW to finish
it's task when offloading files (and this was only 236MB!), so I think
I'm going to keep the Zip250 drive. I wish it were faster, the disks
were cheaper, and that it's capacity was closer to the IBM 340MB
microdrive which I'll be using, but it's a pretty good alternative to
buying another laptop, or installing a larger drive in my current one.
Plus, because it's USB, I can easily move it from system to system
without much hassle. Now if Iomega could just fit it with a CF reader
and a battery like the Clik! drive, they could make a great drive into an
indispensable product for digicam owners everywhere.

Derek W.

Ralph Obert · Oct 19, 1999

Member said:
Member said:

Method 1 (file by file copy):

Click to expand...

Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*

I use a Sony Supressa USB CD-RW. I just burned a CD-R. 256MB took 7:15.

This is a 4x drive. I can't understand at all why yours took 60 min. Since I've started burning CD's my 3 zip drives sit in a box in my office. CD's are MUCH better for long term storage. The cost per MB on CD is way cheaper and no
zip "click of death" to worry about.

Ralph Obert · Oct 19, 1999

Bob said:
I purchase my CDRW from CompUSA for $99 after rebate. Don't even think
about it just buy it. You can backup, copy and create anything. You can
buy a CD-r disk for .10 each . You can buy a CDRW disk for .25 each. You
can't pass this up. The price is great.

Bob

Bob- Are you buying 10,000 CD's at a time? I've never seen a ten-pack for a buck!

Brad · Oct 19, 1999

Member said:
I use a Sony Supressa USB CD-RW. I just burned a CD-R. 256MB took 7:15.
This is a 4x drive. I can't understand at all why yours took 60 min.
Since I've started burning CD's my 3 zip drives sit in a box in my
office. CD's are MUCH better for long term storage. The cost per MB on
CD is way cheaper and no
zip "click of death" to worry about.

Brad · Oct 19, 1999

Ralph Obert said:
Member said:

Member said:

Method 1 (file by file copy):

Click to expand...

Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*

Click to expand...

I use a Sony Supressa USB CD-RW. I just burned a CD-R. 256MB took 7:15.
This is a 4x drive. I can't understand at all why yours took 60 min.
Since I've started burning CD's my 3 zip drives sit in a box in my
office. CD's are MUCH better for long term storage. The cost per MB on
CD is way cheaper and no
zip "click of death" to worry about.

Let me try this again -- the tab key can be annoying at times!

I looked at that same drive and almost bought one, but a friend a work said he had read a review that indicated there were some problems with it. I wish I had looked into it more now.

Was this the time to create one file that was 256MB, or 3,970 files? FOr a true test, you should re-create the exact same conditions. If you look at my testing methods, you'll see that copying one file did take less time than trying to copy nearly 4,000 files. My CD-RW is an HP (don't remeber the exact model) that I've had for about a year. It's possible that significant speed improvements have been made since I purchased mine, and if so, then the Spressa is indeed a better deal. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the $99 drive mentioned below wasn't all that fast.

BTW, what is the "click of death"?

Derek W.

Amy · Oct 19, 1999

Hi Derek/Ralph,

To start with, I bought the Sony Spressa USB CD-RW drive and very enthusiastic hoping that this can store image files without the high cost of zip disks. However, all I got was frustration out of it for 3 weeks. The hot burn program came with it never work on my machine, a Dell PII 450. As soon as I got to the file selecting step it freeze my computer. I called Sony, spent hours on phone with tech support and went nowhere. I then switched to Adaptec CD creator software and was able to create a few CDs. Suddenly one day when the program was ready to write, it asked for a new CD to be inserted, which of course was in the drive way before. The drive never worked since then.

I am not that technical to fix the problem and finally out of extreme frustration, I bought an HP external CD RW M820. This new drive cost almost $200 more than the Sony but I got perfect CD fast everytime. If I skip the test phrase, I can make a full 650mb cd in less than 20 minutes. I just love this cute little machine especially after what I went through with Sony's. Now I have so many blank zip disks available.

I gave the Sony to my 15 yr old son who used it on a pentium II 350. He is able to make CD out of it but still the process freeze up his machine from time to time. That just makes me believe that Sony has problem with this CD RW.
May be you can give me more information.

Amy

Derek W. said:
Ralph Obert said:

Member said:

Member said:

Method 1 (file by file copy):

Click to expand...

Source: Drive C:, 3970 files, 236.5MB
Time to copy to Zip250: 26 min, 38 sec.
Time to copy to CD-R: > 60 minutes*

Click to expand...

I use a Sony Supressa USB CD-RW. I just burned a CD-R. 256MB took 7:15.
This is a 4x drive. I can't understand at all why yours took 60 min.
Since I've started burning CD's my 3 zip drives sit in a box in my
office. CD's are MUCH better for long term storage. The cost per MB on
CD is way cheaper and no
zip "click of death" to worry about.

Click to expand...

Let me try this again -- the tab key can be annoying at times!

I looked at that same drive and almost bought one, but a friend a work
said he had read a review that indicated there were some problems with
it. I wish I had looked into it more now.

Was this the time to create one file that was 256MB, or 3,970 files? FOr
a true test, you should re-create the exact same conditions. If you look
at my testing methods, you'll see that copying one file did take less
time than trying to copy nearly 4,000 files. My CD-RW is an HP (don't
remeber the exact model) that I've had for about a year. It's possible
that significant speed improvements have been made since I purchased
mine, and if so, then the Spressa is indeed a better deal. On the other
hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the $99 drive mentioned below wasn't all
that fast.

BTW, what is the "click of death"?

Derek W.

Ralph Obert · Oct 19, 1999

Member said:
Let me try this again -- the tab key can be annoying at times!

I looked at that same drive and almost bought one, but a friend a work
said he had read a review that indicated there were some problems with
it. I wish I had looked into it more now.

Was this the time to create one file that was 256MB, or 3,970 files? FOr
a true test, you should re-create the exact same conditions. If you look
at my testing methods, you'll see that copying one file did take less
time than trying to copy nearly 4,000 files. My CD-RW is an HP (don't
remeber the exact model) that I've had for about a year. It's possible
that significant speed improvements have been made since I purchased
mine, and if so, then the Spressa is indeed a better deal. On the other
hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the $99 drive mentioned below wasn't all
that fast.

BTW, what is the "click of death"?

Derek W.

Member said:
Derek- I set it up to do 1 file or 400 files and the time is the same. The time just varies with the total size. There is fairly common problem when you insert a zip disk and it just starts clicking. I think it is a physical problem with the drive. I have read some things on the internet on how to fix it yourself. I don't bother with the zip any more because of the cost and durability of CD's. And most all competers have CD rom drives. It is so cheep to just hand a friend pictures on a CD even if its not full.

By the way- I hope Mike at Cameraworld comes through for us. I called him yesterday and he is saying before Christmas. I had hoped sooner. I'm #4 on the list.
-Ralph

Ralph Obert · Oct 19, 1999

Amy Lee said:
Hi Derek/Ralph,

To start with, I bought the Sony Spressa USB CD-RW drive and very
enthusiastic hoping that this can store image files without the high cost
of zip disks. However, all I got was frustration out of it for 3 weeks.
The hot burn program came with it never work on my machine, a Dell PII
450. As soon as I got to the file selecting step it freeze my computer. I
called Sony, spent hours on phone with tech support and went nowhere.

Amy- The Sony has worked for me. I'm running windows 98.

Search

Zip-250 USB vs. CD-RW

Brad

Guest

Amy

Guest

Robert11970

Well-known member

Brad

Guest

Brad

Guest

Bob

Guest

Ralph Obert

Guest

Ralph Obert

Guest

Brad

Guest

Brad

Guest

Amy

Guest

Ralph Obert

Guest

Ralph Obert

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts