• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Seagate's Address

V

Vlad

Moderator
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
2,240
Location
United States
Seagate Technology LLC.

The company that makes Hard Drives. (My favorite)
I love their address:

Seagate Technology LLC
1 Disc Drive
Scotts Valley, California

Their on a Drive, but not just ANY drive. Their on Disc Drive! The Number one Disc Drive!!!

-V
 
Re: Seagate's Address

"vlad" wrote:

> Seagate Technology LLC.

> The company that makes Hard Drives. (My favorite)
> I love their address:

> Seagate Technology LLC
> 1 Disc Drive
> Scotts Valley, California

> Their on a Drive, but not just ANY drive. Their on Disc Drive! The
> Number one Disc Drive!!!

Wonder if their've bundled up all the Disk based companies & stuck 'em
at that drive?

Interesting to note they've spelt it as "Disc" not as "Disk". Amstrad were
one of the few who refered to their "Disks" as "Discs". Mainly because
their typically a 3" disc. They were great as discs, cause like 3.5" disks,
they had strong plastic - but were even well protected discs (you couldn't
for example tear the metal cover off the top exposing the Disk - ready to
be damaged) & also unlike 3.5" disks you could physically flip them over -
they were only Single Density, but Doubled Sided discs (if you know what
I mean). Later on they devised a 3" Double Density disk (around 720k
each side - or maybe it was both sides, can't remember now) - which was
mostly used for their PCW line of machines since they were popular WP
machines.

CP/M User.
 
From what I've noticed, magnetic (floppy, hdd, etc.) disks go by the "k" name, and optical media use the "c" nomenclature, with a few exceptions, as noted above.

--T
 
I've seen a satellite shot of Seagate HQ, Their the only bulding, or complex rather on that road so they probably got to name it since they proabably built it. Other companies have named roads, like Dell is on 1 Dell Way.

But thats not as fun as the number 1 Disc Drive


-V
 
Just thought I mention (which was a little bit funny) the other night there
was this Intel ad that I'd never saw before - which was bragging on about
how for many years the Intel processor has been limited & confined to
PCs. At first I thought this was some revelotionary processor which was
going to space or something, the next new thing to kill the Internet or
something with artifical intelligence! - but all it was, was simply an
commercial letting us know that the Intel processor has made it to the
Apple Mac based machines. I thought is that all - the commercial had me
thinking they'd cracked the mysteries of the universe or something.

But if their in a Mac then what does that mean - more business for Intel -
or has Apple died or lost the battle?

CP/M User.
 
It means IBM has lost the battle, and Apple selected a different provider and technical platform. In a few years time, the next version of Windows (either Vista or its follow-up) may be a side-by-side competitor to Mac OS X, when both systems have the same hardware requirements, unless Macs will be hardware locked to prevent Windows and vice versa.

On the other hand, IBM makes various PPC CPUs for Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and I believe Nintendo Revolution, so they will not fall back to a small player even on the consumer market - I'm not sure how their market position is on business and labs.
 
I'm still angry about Apple leaving the Power PC processor! They migh as well have died in my opinon. Macs will never be the same.

-V

P.S. I scored a Power Mac G3 desktop from a friend.....
 
If you look at the number of chips that IBM provides to Apple, you can look at it either as IBM has lost the battle, or IBM didn't want the business.

IBM sells a lot of embedded PowerPC chips. IBM also sells a lot of server class PowerPC chips. IBM doesn't sell much in the middle - which is what they were supplying to Apple.

IBM also doesn't have a 'laptop' optimized version of the PowerPC chip, which was hurting Apple in the laptop market.

So don't look at it as a win or a loss .. it's just a business decision.
 
True, but I just don't like Intel all that much. Now Intel in my favorite computer. I just can't see any good. I'm just going to miss the PPC Macs.

-V
 
I suppose the server class computers may be a hint more secure for exploits if the PPC chips are not so common so hackers around the world know how to misuse it on a ML level.

On the other hand, maybe Mac OS will be more targetted for various attacks once it mainly runs on X86 platforms, or are most viruses, malware and other nastiness relying on other things than executing raw machine code?

A few years ago it was rumoured that Apple and AMD would join forces, but eventually it appears Intel was the preferred partner. I've also heard rumours about Apple and Sun, Sun and AMD. If I recall correctly, the low end Sun workstations use AMD CPUs now, but the rumour went further than that. Now, Apple + Sun + AMD, that would be one helluva threesome!
 
Sun Microsystems uses AMD processors in the low end Workstations only. Every thing else still has their own SPARC. Thats something that never going to change. The SPARC was always in the HPC stuff they have. They used AMD Processors to drop the price a little. The SPARC's are expensive, but worth it in my opinon. I don't think Sun would ever stop useing the SPARC processor, it what their known for and the SPARC has too much power to get rid of. The came out with the SPARC T1 not too long ago. They are still going strong. And their Solaris OS is mainly used on SPARC's.

-V

SPARC =Scalable Processor ARChitcture. Its a RISC based Processor.

The wikipedia has a wealth of information on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC
 
But Sun in the 80'ties used 286 and 386, IIRC. It was not until mid-late 80'ties the first SPARC processor was introduced.

I don't know whether UltraSPARC-II, III or whatever is the most state of the art is that superior to other makes. I suppose it depends on what you use it for and the architecture. For a desktop computer, I was not overly amazed by the Ultra-10 (yet the 440 MHz version) performance over a top class PC at that time, in particular if you took in consideration you could get three top class PCs for the cost of one Ultra-10. I suppose the desktop systems more and more became IBM PC compatibles with SPARC instead of X86. As a server, they at least used to be excellent due to great bus capacity. In a blade server or even bigger application, I can see if the overall capacity makes it an attractive platform compared to Itanium, PPC and whatever other major architectures there are.

AMD also has a RISC past with the 29000 series, which they dropped in 1995 in favour of making profiable Intel clones as we all know. I suppose at least a bit of the spirit remains with the development of Opteron and future installments. I don't think Sun would be hampered by joint developement with AMD if that was the future. It could still be a SPARC, but maybe with some new concepts and manufacturing shortcuts. Hey, maybe it would even cut the price a bit, so they could afford to put the same architecture in all computers again?
 
Suns first workstations were based on the 68000 family. There were some low-end x86 boxes, but the company was founded on the 68000 family.


Mike
 
Oh yes, I remember now. Weren't the founders working for Motorola? That would be at least two computer tech companies formed from people leaving Motorola.
 
Keep in mind that the SPARC's are suppost to run Solaris, Not some random Linux distro that clames to be "compatible" with the SPARC. Solaris is the only OS to be designed for the SPARC. Thats why it's the only one that you see running on SPARC machines......

-V
 
Well, Solaris for X86 was available for a while. Then Sun dropped it, received a bit of complaints and I think they picked it up again, at least for a short while. Doesn't the low-end AMD Suns use Solaris X86?

I've run at least NetBSD/SPARC too. On the real low-end SPARCstations like ELC, IPX, LX and SS/2, it appeared to flow better and use much less memory than Solaris 2.X - don't even bother 7 or higher.
 
carlsson said:
- don't even bother 7 or higher.
Click to expand...


Funny you should say that, I just got Solaris 10. I LOVE Solaris, It would be the only OS I run if it was compatible with my Server, But since I used some pretty off-the-wall stuff while bulding it, Solaris doesin't really like it. Neither did Windows.....


-V
 
Well, "don't even bother" referred to those 25 MHz SuperSPARC systems I listed. On an Ultra-1 or better, I'm sure recent versions are fine, and on the newest generation hardware, it is the choice of Solaris version.
 
Oh, I see what you mean now.
I like Solaris 9 and 10. I would LOVE to have a SPARC machine for my collection, and because I am a huge fan of Sun Microsystems, but I can't ever seem to find one......

-V
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top