Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Message

Re: [Digital BW] Better Storage, was Better Scans

2001-11-15 by SKID Photography

For the record:
We got the Peerless because it was really an IBM product, so that it shouldn't suffer the 'click of death' and
that it *is* portable.  In many of the reviews, it was pointed out that all the other 'portable' hard drives
were really just 'external' ones and too fragile to considered portable (like via a messenger).

At the time, I had not considered owning a high end scanner, and all the service bureaus were charging extra
to burn to a CD, so I figured that the Peerless was the way to go.  We could messenger the disks around,
either from the service bureaus or to/from clients.

And as far as a club name....Weighing in at 240#, I could have easily been Chubbie Boy myself....But, *that*
is also a slang, closely related to SK©ID....Think about it.  ;- D

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC


Mark Tucker wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have recently
> bought into a new Iomega
> > system called the 'Peerless'.
>
>
> I have always envisioned a box of some kind, that would hold
> slide-in harddrives. Maybe the box had five or six slots, and you
> could just slide in another 75gig drive as you needed the
> storage.
>
> Someone recently sent me a link to a device that was similar to
> this, but I've lost the URL now. So I know that it at least exists in
> some form.
>
> The burning-CD business got old really fast, especially when
> Toast won't run in the background. And 640megs is just not
> enough space to devote that much time to hogging your Mac.
> The ideal solution would be to do these monster backups at
> night, when you were leaving work, and then let it run as long as
> it needed to. I have now, in my G4, the 30gig that shipped with it,
> and then a second 75gig drive. They are now so cheap (IDE) that
> that Zip thingie seems overpriced to me, for the amount of
> storage that you get.
>
> And this doesn't even address the issue of reduncancy. Now that
> you've got everything on a couple of drives, now you'd want all
> that backed up. And for me, I'd also want something where I
> could easily keep the backup data in a totally separate location,
> in case of fire. So you can see it could get complicated pretty
> quickly.
>
> I'd love to hear any solutions that anyone has come up with,
> especially if it was in the 200-300gig amounts.
>
> -Mark Tucker
>
> PS. Harvey: Regarding the history/origin of your company name, I
> got quite a kick out of it. Thanks for the great story. I did end up
> feeling a bit "Baptist" as I compared my company name to yours.
> I also began to wonder what MY name would have been, if I had
> been in one of those clubs; maybe "Oreo DoubleStuff Cookie
> Boy", or "BarBQ Boy", or "Chubbie Boy".
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Attachments

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.