Talk:Conner Peripherals

Unsourced statement
"Conner Hard Drives were considered to be of poor quality compared to other manufacturers. It was not uncommon for their harddrives to fail or develop bad sectors after only hours of usage." This has been in the main article for a while without a cite, so if anyone else can come up with a source for this, I'd appreciate it. (I know Conner got weird toward the end, but I never noticed them being that bad!) -lee 22:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that can't be used because it has no internet source, but ask around and learn from people who have had a lot of Conners, they are crap, the worst drives out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.233 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with early Conner drives: The heads didn't have a landing zone, when power was removed the heads just dropped on to the platter wherever they were. And, the platters had a lubricant that when the drive got hot the lubricant turned into a glue; remove power and the heads landed in the glue. Emergency remedy to the glued heads - remove the drive, turn it on edge and smack it onto a hard surface. Quality issues aside, the first Conner product was a 40MB drive - at the time MS-DOS 3.0 was the predominant operating system and and DOS had a drive partition limit of 32MB. 172.243.135.177 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Many small drives of the 1980s did not have landing zones. Similarly lubrication problems happened on many disk drives going back into the first non-IBM Winchesters in the late 1970s so absent a RS that Conner drives were particularly bad there is no need for this discussion to go much further.  Tom94022 (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Relationship between Seagate and Conner Models
The section is unsourced so is questionable. With regard to the U series, it is my understanding that they were developed in Singapore so it is hard to see a direct link to Conner (I have no quotable source so I marked it dubious). On the whole, absent a source we should consider dropping this section Tom94022 (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed; most of that section came from what little I know about the drives from studying them myself. I'll go ahead and remove it. -lee (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversion
With regard to the recent revision by an new anonymous editor, I fail to understand how 90 words is "too long" when compared to the prior 87 words and how a "badly referenced" (even if they were bad) section is better than a section with no references, and several errors. It is likely this new editor is a sock puppet harassing me. Given that this anonymous user apparently is supporting similar reversions of another editor who is a probable sock puppeteer, I would appreciate help from other editors in keeping this nonsense down. Tom94022 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Over linking of information already available which makes it too long and badly referenced. Sock puppet? Harassing? Just because your changes get reverted don't make groundless accusations. 62.219.155.128 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you that there can be over linking but I fail to understand either why the sentences are "trivially obvious" or what about the two links added is already available in the article or elsewhere in Wikipedia, for that matter. One of the links is not even available on line!  Reversion without comment is not very polite, particularly since you revert to an section with several errors, why don't u try to improve the article?  If you  feel the links are "trivially obvious" and can supply some evidence to that fact then I would be happy to remove them.  Otherwise WP:V Wikepedia's Verifiability Policy requires they be retained.  Whether u like it or not a new IP account is frequently a sign of a sock puppet particularly when there is a dispute.  BTW, how is it a new editor with an IP address in Israel jumps into the middle of a dispute over Conner Peripherals, a company long since absorbed into Seagate?  I look forward to your future contributions and as they evolve I will withdraw my concern that you are a sock puppet.  Tom94022 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Article
This is a great article, thanks to whoever wrote it, but it doesn't answer the central question: Why do Conner drives suck so badly? To read the article, it would seem that any Conner drive would have had to have been a technological marvel, but any real users who know them from the ones in Macintosh computers know otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.233 (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Performance issues
The following sentences at the beginning of Section 1.2 are not referenced, likely untrue and combined a non-sequitur:

Given most of the firsts sentence is not sourced and likely untrue then the second sentence becomes a non-sequitur. The first sentence and the "To remedy this,"  should be removed. FWIW, anecdotal history has it that DEC wanted a higher performance disk drive which led Conner to develop and offer Chinook to DEC but when they declined the program was killed; it is not clear that any production units were ever sold. Absent a RS this can't go into the article. Tom94022 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that buffer memory has much to do with performance and as voice coil motor drives Conner has much lower average access time than the many stepper motor drives of the same era.
 * Most small drives of that era spun at 3600 RPM.
 * It is not clear that ZBR really made much difference in capacity since it only adds about 20% compared to conventional recording and that difference can be made up by increasing areal density.