Talk:Quantum Corporation

About the notes

Those notes at the bottom are a great addition. Hydrargyrum, if you come back by this page, can you see if there's any details I missed? I wrote most of this article, based on having read Quantum's patents and doing research in old magazines and the New York Times, and I'm wondering if there's any other inside information that would be useful. (Oh, and did the Shrewsbury designs continue using a 68k processor even after the Quantum takeover? I remember taking apart an old DSP series drive and seeing a 68030 in it, and I know the Milpitas designs more or less universally used NEC 78k CPUs.) -lee 14:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To add to this, it looks like we've had a visit from someone in Shrewsbury...[1] -lee 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

hahahahahahahahaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.242.231 (talk • contribs)

Nice try. That geolocation tool is getting confused because it would seem Maxtor has all its internal IPs in a netblock issued out of Longmont. If you do a traceroute, the route goes through Boston. -lee 01:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I visited this article, Lee, but I see that much of what I'd footnoted on January 28, 2006 has been pretty much diluted into oblivion. It's interesting to step through the article history as (ex-)Shrewsbury people have chimed in and put their spin on events. Laughable. I worked in a technical capacity in the Milpitas, California facility until late 2001, but we were acutely aware of the behind-the-scenes politics, and bitter rivalries among the executives. The low end SCSI disk drive products coming out of Milpitas were simpler, ran cooler and quieter, had better reliability and actually outperformed many of the high end disk drives designed in Shrewsbury, with faster seek times and better data rates. Moreover, they typically made it into production on schedule and hit the "sweet spot" in the market; in other words, they made money for the company, while a number of Shrewsbury-designed products were late to market, losing out on market share. I can understand why some folks from Shrewsbury might still feel embarrassed and would like to rewrite history here. The article, as it stands now, makes it seem that the company was split into DLT and HDD divisions (with separate "tracking stocks") due to the "fantastic demand" for DLT drives due to Y2K jitters. While it's true that there was a huge upsurge in tape drive sales in 1999, it's also true that the market flopped the next year along with the unrealized Y2K fears and bursting of the dot-com bubble. What really happened was that Quantum execs were getting ready to put the HDD portion on the chopping block (along with that pesky HDD division president who was gunning for the CEO's job), which, in fact happened in 2001. To dispel any doubts that the whole thing was baked in well in advance, the ex-Quantum employees who were terminated by Maxtor in 2001 were paid their severance out of Quantum funds. It's likely that the decision of which products and groups were to be retained and which were to be terminated was also decided before the HDD division was acquired by Maxtor on April 1, 2001. How else would they have been able to budget for the severance packages that were to be paid by the former employer? It was also interesting to see how they axed groups of just under 200 people each month, month after month, until some 2000 workers were gone from the combined Maxtor and Quantum company; by keeping it under 200 it avoided the need for making public announcements of the layoffs. Milpitas had the better disk drive engineers and Shrewsbury had the better politicians, which isn't entirely surprising, since the disk drive was born in San Jose, California and Silicon Valley was the epicenter of disk drive development for over 30 years. In any case, I'd say Quantum committed suicide due in large part to management egos and internal politics, more than anything else.

To answer your question above, Shrewsbury favored the Motorola 68K processor family, while the late 1990s Milpitas SCSI designs built by MKE used the NEC 78k, the latter having originally been designed for use in photocopy machines. NEC had to make some critical changes to the die so they could win a design-in by Quantum, since MKE in Japan fastidiously avoided buying non-Japanese components, even to the point of forcing Quantum to completely redesign a product and having to rewrite firmware from scratch. There was no meaningful push-back from Quantum management; whatever MKE wanted, MKE usually got, frequently to the detriment of product quality. At our request, NEC added Flash memory to the CPU die, having had no prior expertise in Flash technology. The first year of production from NEC saw drives whose firmware would evaporate in 7-8 months after a drive was built; fortunately, they achieved acceptable data retention in the Flash by the time our disk drive was ready for production. Due to political wrangling between Shrewsbury and Milpitas, the Milpitas SCSI designs were forced to migrate to the same CPUs and code base used by the Shrewsbury HDD teams in 2000, so another code base had to be discarded, a setback for the Milpitas designers. The last hard drive design on which I participated was gerrymandered beyond belief by mid-2001, but at that point we no longer cared, as our team's termination date had already been announced. Ironically, Shrewsbury was tasked with completing our design, and I later heard they finally got it into production a year late, far too late to make a profit. They won all the political battles, but lost the war in the end. It was rather ugly at times. —Quicksilver^{T @} 06:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Hydrargyrum")

The Optical System

A couple of comments regarding the Quantum optical system discussed in the "Origins" section...

 

"they put a diffraction grating on the head arm"

It wasn't a diffraction grating, at least they didn't intend it to be one! Quantum referred to that part in their documentation as a "glass scale", and it was attached to the actuator arm, which moved the head (and thus the scale) back and forth across the disk surface.

The scale was a small, light, very thin piece of glass whose surface had an array of narrow chromium plated lines separated by equal widths of clear glass. The pitch of the lines matched the track pitch on the disk.

Immediately below the scale was a glass reticle, under which was a matching quad photo detector array. The reticle had four openings, one above each cell of the photo array, and each opening was plated with a pattern of lines that matched those on the scale. The phase relationship between the lines in each of the four windows (relative to the scale) was 0°, 90º, 180º and 270º. This allowed for quadrature detection of exact track position and direction of head movement.

The optical system also contained an IR LED that sent light through the scale then through the reticle, to be detected on the quad photo detector. During a seek the system merely needed to count the number of track crossings seen by the detector array to know when it was approaching the desired track. And to then use the quadrature data to place and maintain the head precisely on that track.

 

"the optical system was deemed too slow to be competitive and was discontinued"

Actually, that is not quite accurate. As originally introduced, the optical servo system was an elegant and cost-effective solution. However, as track densities increased, and consequently the line pitch on the scale increased, there came a point where the "scale" had indeed turned into a diffraction grating!!!

The Quantum optical system relied on the light acting as if you were drawing it in a ray tracing program and not as a true electro-magnetic wave function that could "bend" around sharp corners. As soon as the diffracted light became a significant percentage of the light going through the scale, the system lost its ability to accurately seek and follow a track.

By the time of the demise of the optical system, track pitch (and thus line pitch on the scale) was 13um, while the wavelength of the IR emitter was a mere 0.9um. Even though the IR wavelength was more than an order of magnitude smaller than the scale openings, still, about half the light energy was being strongly diffracted. That was the limit the Quantum optical system could stand.

In other words, the optical system died because of snowballing track density requirements. (Although, if it had not been for the diffraction problems, it's true that speed would have eventually caught up to and killed Quantum's optical system.) The diffraction problem was not the only design problem the optical system faced, but it was the one that dealt it the death blow.

The last Quantum drives using the optical system were the Gemini series of drives. Even then, the parts cost for the entire optical system was about $5.25!

I have no idea how useful the above information is to the principle author of the Quantum article, but feel free to use as much or as little of it as you see fit. I'm quite confident there is nothing I wrote above that is any longer proprietary.

Boot 07:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra information on this. You're right; I did fudge a few things in the original article, since I was working from memory and back in 2003 or so, Wikipedia was still pretty lax about citing sources. If I goofed on something, feel free to go ahead and change it. (Also, I should note that what I know about these drives came mainly from Quantum's patents, some of which are very nearly full technical manuals, and from actually taking a few drives apart. I've never actually worked for Quantum or any of their successors, I just had something of an obsession with their drives back in the 1990s -- mainly fueled by glowing reviews in MacUser, of all things -- and had to know what made them tick. :D)

PS. I actually do have a Gemini here (the LPS120AT, to be specific), and it still works fine with no bad sectors despite being 16 years old. It's not of much use in an era where they practically put 1GB USB keys in cereal boxes, but it's still impressive. -lee 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Lee. The observations I made above were minor and hyper-technical in nature, so I'll only add a note to the main article to click on the discussion page for more detail.

One extra technical note, the Quantum optical servo system was the brain child of their head of Advanced R&D, Bill Moon, a certifiable genius and a real kind gentleman, to boot.

I got a kick out of your comment about how you learned about the drives through disassembling them, that's the mark of a very healthy mind! I learned from spending four years at Quantum as an engineer.

About those "glowing reviews in MacUser" that you mention, Apple was easily Quantum's single biggest HDD customer for almost the entire time Quantum was in the HDD business.

Boot 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Apple OEM drives. Those were fun. The oldest Apple OEM drive I've run into so far was a mid-1980s Q280 (most likely a pull from a Mac II!) that, sadly, no longer worked when I got it (it'd either been dropped hard or degaussed). I've also seen some Apple OEM drives that were, to put it mildly, VERY weird. A few machines in the late 1980s/early 1990s had those oddball Sony drives in them (AFAIK the only hard drive Sony ever made) -- I think Quantum actually sued Sony over that, since the optical servo system was in them). There was also the MiniScribe 20MB that was in the SE, but MiniScribe was always strange. (I also hear tell the people that designed Conner's first drives were ex-MiniScribe, which explains a lot.)

And yeah, Bill Moon, I know about him. His name's all over Quantum's early patents. He sounds like he would have been an interesting guy to meet. 66.93.100.114 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops, that was me; I forgot to log in. -lee 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion of the optical feature into a separate section. Much of the text here was useful! I hope it makes sense. -- Austin Murphy 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do about the notes

I have some problems with the Notes section in this article:

• It might be getting long. We're up to 7 footnotes now, and it's starting to look messy.
• Parts of it read like an advertisement. Ever since Shrewsbury passed by, it's read like a pep rally for their team, complete with boasting about how Storage Review likes their drive (which is well and good, but not terribly encyclopedic) and how great things are going to be under Seagate (noting, of course, that Seagate doesn't even mention the Atlas 15k on their site now). I propose trimming out the bits that read like that, and possibly removing the bits about their little turf war with Milpitas unless someone else (Boot Hill, Quicksilver?) can add more about it.
• Reliable sources. All of this is based on primary sources and anecdotes from people that were there. I really wish we had a better way of vetting all this, but no one's written a book about it yet...

Comments? -lee 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the notes are taking over the page, but I think they hold the best parts of the article. My opinion is that they should be rolled into the main article. We can probably tone down the "rah-rah" part. Some of it may make more sense in the Seagate article or even a DEC Storage article. Primary sources are not a problem as long as they are identified. Why not make a little primary sources section on this talk page? -- Austin Murphy 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. That may not be so bad, then. -lee 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the notes after moving a lot of the info into the article. It could still be improved a lot, but I think this is an improvement. -- Austin Murphy 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks a lot better than it did. Thanks for the help! -lee 14:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing in Ireland

I think I recall some Quantum hard disks from the mid-90s allegedly being made in Ireland. this article also suggests that they have or had some operation in Dundalk. Anyone have any more info? --Zilog Jones 21:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is totally anecdotal, but I had one of the Ireland-made disks some time ago (I forget now which exact model it was, but it was form the ST/SE era, about 1997.) -lee 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was just a repair facility and a warehouse. The articles I can find are kind of vague. It appears that production is currently in Panang, Malaysia. -- Austin Murphy 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Quantum/Matsushita had a factory in Ireland and there were "Made in Ireland" Quantum drives. The factory was actually run by Matsushita to build drives for Quantum, just like the Matsushita factories in Japan and Singapore. See here (Matsushita to open a plant in Ireland to build drives for Quantum), here (same), here (SEC statement clearly saying that Quantum drives are built in Ireland), here (SEC statement saying MKE stopped producing drives in Ireland), here (Matsushita closing Ireland drive plant). There is a Facebook page run by ex-Quantum Dundalk employees. Quantum (the tape drive business) shut down the Dundalk site in 2006, see Facebook page for documents. This was a Quantum-run repair/configuration/logistics facility in Dundalk that kept going for some time after the drive production was stopped. In summary, there was both a repair facility/warehouse in Dundalk and a drive production facility. Codegen86 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that Quantum's own documentation shows how to identify drives made in Ireland based on their serial number. Codegen86 (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Good investigation work, albeit over a decade from the original query. - Indefensible (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Updating Quantum Article

Hi, I work at Quantum and noticed the description at the beginning of the article is out of date. I thought it would help to add some of the technologies Quantum is currently offering. I may also be able to add some historical perspective having originally joined back in 2000.

More than just tape drives, Quantum also sells tape library, disk-based virtual tape library or VTL systems, data de-duplication technology, and storage management software.

Let me know if I can help with any specific verifications and I may be able to find source materials (as long as it is not company confidential or copyrighted material).

Slamby (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Updating Quantum’s Wikipedia Page

Hi everyone. My name is Bob Wientzen and I’m Quantum’s internal PR manager. Quantum has evolved greatly since the creation of this Wikipedia entry and I’m hoping to work with all of you to update the content so that it’s reflective of the company’s current state and offerings.

I understand the importance of keeping this page factual and up-to-date for readers, thus I am happy to receive any feedback you have to ensure that this entry is current. To begin with, I would like to know your thoughts on revising the format of the entry to include the sections outlined below. Please let me know if this is an agreeable starting point for updating this entry – you can contact me directly at bob.wientzen@quantum.com.

I. Company History

II. Products/Services a. Disk-based systems/devices b. Data management software c. Tape systems, drives and media

III. Partners

IV. Company Milestones/Acquisitions (to include the acquisitions listed in the “Transformation” section) Bob Wientzen (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Source of References to enhance current limited inline citations

The page below provides a great list of sources we can review to enhance the current limited inline citations in the article.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Quantum-Corporation-Company-History.html Further Reading:

• Abate, Tom, "Disk Drive Profits to Rise," San Francisco Examiner, December 13, 1995, p. B88
• Bean, Joanna, "Quantum Is Diversifying; Firm's Leap into Storage Systems Could Mean Expansion of Its Colorado Springs Operation," Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, Bus. Sec., March 2, 1999, p. 1.
• Bengali, Shashank, "Milpitas, Calif.-Based Tech Firm May Employ Stock Trick for Spin-offs," San Jose Mercury News, July 22, 1999.
• Catalano, Frank, "James L. Patterson: The Drive to Succeed," Electronic Business, April 1, 1986, p. 50.
• Einstein, David, "Quantum Buys Unit from DEC," San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 1994, p. C1.
• Gonzales, Lou, "Quantum Seals Deal for Market Expansion; Norwegian Company Will Make, Sell Tape Drives," Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, Bus. Sec., September 10, 1998, p. 1.
• Helft, Miguel, "Disk Drive Maker Quantum Corp. to Expand into Data Storage Systems," San Jose Mercury News, March 1, 1999.
• Hof, Robert D., "Quantum Has One Tough Hurdle to Leap," Business Week, July 8, 1991, pp. 84-86.
• Lindholm, Elizabeth, "'Quantum Corporation,' The Datamation 100," Datamation, June 15, 1992, p. 86.
• Newman, Cara, "Quantum Wins Round One," Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 9, 2001, p. 11.
• Norr, Henry, "Quantum Corp. to Lay Off 600 in Milpitas," San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 1999, p. B1.
• ------, "Maxtor Agrees to Buy Quantum's Hard-Disk-Drive Business," San Francisco Chronicle, October 5, 2000, p. B5.
• "Quantum to Lay off 1,000 Workers," Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 9, 2002.
• Rae-Dupree, Janet, "Bigfoot Disk Drive Packs More Data, Cuts Computer Cost," San Jose Mercury News, February 27, 1996.
• Sanders, Edmund, "ATL Products Accepts Buyout by Quantum," Orange County Register, May 20, 1998, p. C1.
• Sucharski, Karen, "Quantum Layoffs Reflect New Model," Colorado Springs Business Journal, February 18, 2000, p. 1.
• Walsh, Chris, "Quantum Theory: Springs Operation Plays Bigger Strategic Role for Tape-Drive Maker," Gazette (Colorado Springs), Bus. Sec., May 6, 2001, p. 1.

Source: International Directory of Company Histories, Vol.62. St. James Press, 2004. § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Fireball, ugh.

...and after we have enough time to sort through this mess, I think it should be considered that basically every consumer Quantum in the mid to late 90's is a "Fireball". Ugh. --144.131.105.68 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with recent revision

The latest revision involved streamlining the section regarding Quantum's hard disk products. Apparently "streamlining" meant "remove it completely", and I disagree with it. I think the list of Quantum's hard disk products was perhaps the most important part of the article because that is the most well-known part of their corporate existance, and it offered an excellent database of their hard disk products and when they were released. Anyone care to agree/disagree?

--Trent021 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Request: Edits to Introduction and Information Box Sections

I am submitting multiple requests for edits on behalf of Quantum Corporation as part of my work for Golin (formerly GolinHarris). In an effort to make the requested edits as clear as possible, I have broken them out by section. This request proposes several changes to the information box and introduction to the article. Please let me know if there are any edits or issues with the requested edits below. Thanks in advance for the help!

1. Information box: The products section is outdated.

Before: Magnetic tape data storage, disk-based data backup and recovery, virtual and cloud data protection, and file system and archive solutions

After: Magnetic tape data storage, disk-based data backup and recovery, virtual and cloud data protection, file system and archive solutions, object storage and hybrid storage.

Source 1: http://data-storage-newscom.blogspot.com/2012/11/quantum-announces-new-family-of-wide.html

Formatted reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Angles|first1=Chris|title=Quantum Announces New Family of Wide Area Storage Solutions for Managing|url=http://data-storage-newscom.blogspot.com/2012/11/quantum-announces-new-family-of-wide.html|website=Data Storage News|publisher=Data Storage News|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

Source 2: http://www.storagereview.com/quantum_integrates_dot_hill_into_its_tiered_storage_offerings

Formatted reference 2: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Armstrong|first1=Adam|title=Quantum Integrates Dot Hill Into Its Tiered Storage Offerings|url=http://www.storagereview.com/quantum_integrates_dot_hill_into_its_tiered_storage_offerings|website=Storage Review|publisher=StorageReview.com|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

2. Introduction: Minor updates that include removing repetitive wording, adding updated information and breaking the paragraph into two.

Before: Quantum Corporation is a manufacturer of tape drive, tape automation, and disk-based data deduplication backup, recovery and deduplication storage products for physical, virtual and cloud environments. It also sells scalable file storage systems and archive software and appliances for managing data. The company's headquarters is in San Jose, California. From its founding in 1980 until 2001, it was also a major disk storage manufacturer (usually second-place in market share behind Seagate), and was based in Milpitas, California. Quantum sold its hard disk drive business to Maxtor in 2001.

After: Quantum Corporation is a manufacturer of tape drive, tape automation, and disk-based data deduplication backup and recovery storage products for physical, virtual and cloud environments. It also sells scalable file storage systems and archive software and appliances for managing data, as well as object storage and hybrid storage. The company's headquarters is in San Jose, California.

From its founding in 1980 until 2001, it was also a major disk storage manufacturer (usually second-place in market share behind Seagate), and was based in Milpitas, California. Quantum sold its hard disk drive business to Maxtor in 2001.

Source/Tag: Add the following Wikipedia page to the word "virtual" in the above introduction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization

JessicaWinski (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Edits to Quantum-Maxtor Merger Section

I am submitting multiple requests for edits on behalf of Quantum Corporation as part of my work for Golin (formerly GolinHarris). In an effort to make the requested edits as clear as possible, I have broken them out by section. This request proposes several changes to the Quantum-Maxtor Merger section of the article. Please let me know if there are any edits or issues with the requested edits below. Thanks in advance for the help!

1. The name of the section suggests that all of Quantum and Maxtor merged, but this is incorrect. We are suggesting renaming the section to reflect the sale of Quantum's hard drive division to Maxtor.

Before: Quantum-Maxtor merger

After: Sale of hard drive division to Maxtor

Source 1: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2588556/windows-pcs/maxtor-to-acquire-quantum-disk-drive-group.html

Formatted reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|last1=DiSabatino|first1=Jennifer|title=Maxtor to acquire Quantum disk drive group|url=http://www.computerworld.com/article/2588556/windows-pcs/maxtor-to-acquire-quantum-disk-drive-group.html|website=Computer World|publisher=Computerworld, Inc.|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

Source 2: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Maxtor-Agrees-to-Buy-Quantum-s-Hard-Disk-Drive-2735295.php

Formatted reference 2: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Norr|first1=Henry|title=Maxtor Agrees to Buy Quantum's Hard-Disk-Drive Business|url=http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Maxtor-Agrees-to-Buy-Quantum-s-Hard-Disk-Drive-2735295.php|website=San Francisco Gate|publisher=Hearst|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

2: The last paragraph about Quantum purchasing Meridian Data should be in the Acquisitions section as it relates more directly to Quantum's acquisitions, rather than the merger with Maxtor. The Acquisitions section is directly below this one. The edit requests to the Acquisition section include the addition of the below statement to the list of bullets.

Before: Remove: Quantum purchased Meridian Data, developer of the Snap Server line of network attached storage products in 1999. This division was spun off in 2002 as Snap Appliance and was subsequently acquired by Adaptec in 2004.

After: Relocate to the Acquisitions section as the first bullet. The bullet should read as follows:

1999 – Meridian Data, developer of the Snap Server line of network attached storage products. This division was spun off in 2002 as Snap Appliance and was subsequently acquired by Adaptec in 2004.

No source.

JessicaWinski (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Edits to Acquisitions Section

I am submitting multiple requests for edits on behalf of Quantum Corporation as part of my work for Golin (formerly GolinHarris). In an effort to make the requested edits as clear as possible, I have broken them out by section. This request proposes several changes to the Acquisitions section of the article. Please let me know if there are any edits or issues with the requested edits below. Thanks in advance for the help!

1. Update the name to Acquisitions since 1994 DEC Acquisition to accurately reflect what the section talks about. The DEC acquisition is discussed in a previous section and not mentioned here.

Before: Acquisitions

After: Acquisitions Since 1994 DEC Acquisition

No source.

2. There are both minor edits for grammar and readability, small corrections as well as the addition of the 1999 bullet from the Quantum-Maxtor merger section.

Before:

• 1998 – ATL Products, a manufacturer of automated tape libraries.
• 2001 – M4 Data (Holdings) Ltd., a manufacturer of tape libraries.
• 2002 – Benchmark Storage Innovations, who manufactured the VStape product line under a Quantum license.
• 2005 – Certance, the former tape business of Seagate Technology, becoming a member of the LTO consortium.
• 2006 – Advanced Digital Information Corporation (ADIC), Scalar brand tape libraries, StorNext filesystem and De-Duplication technology.
• 2011 – Pancetera Software, a specialist in data management and protection for virtual environments, for $12 million.
• 2014 - SymForm, Cloud storage company

After: {{fontcolor|green|

• 1998 – ATL Products, a manufacturer of automated tape libraries.
• 1999 – Meridian Data, developer of the Snap Server line of network attached storage products. This division was spun off in 2002 as Snap Appliance and was subsequently acquired by Adaptec in 2004.
• 2001 – M4 Data (Holdings) Ltd., a manufacturer of tape libraries.
• 2002 – Benchmark Storage Innovations, who manufactured the VStape product line under a Quantum license.
• 2005 – Certance, the former tape business of Seagate Technology, making Quantum a member of the LTO consortium.
• 2006 – Advanced Digital Information Corporation (ADIC), provider of Scalar brand tape libraries, StorNext file system and deduplication technology.
• 2011 – Pancetera Software, a specialist in data management and protection for virtual environments, for $12 million.
• 2014 - Symform Cloud storage platform.

Source: http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300073638/quantum-acquires-symform-plans-to-bring-cloud-based-backups-to-enterprise.htm

Formatted Reference: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Kovar|first1=Joseph F.|title=Quantum Acquires Symform, Plans To Bring Cloud-Based Backups To Enterprise|url=http://www.crn.com/news/storage/300073638/quantum-acquires-symform-plans-to-bring-cloud-based-backups-to-enterprise.htm|website=CRN|publisher=The Channel Company|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

JessicaWinski (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Edits to Multiple Products Sections

I am submitting multiple requests for edits on behalf of Quantum Corporation as part of my work for Golin (formerly GolinHarris). In an effort to make the requested edits as clear as possible, I have broken them out by section. This request proposes several changes to the various products sections of the article. Please let me know if there are any edits or issues with the requested edits below. Thanks in advance for the help!

1. Tape Storage Products 1994-Present: We're requesting adding one sentence at the end of the section that brings the section up to date.

Addition: In 2015, Quantum made LTO Ultrium format generation 7 technology available in its Scalar and StorNext AEL tape libraries.

Source 1: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/quantum-to-add-lto-7-drives-to-expansive-tiered-storage-portfolio-300142992.html

Formatted Reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|title=Quantum to Add LTO-7 Drives to Expansive Tiered Storage Portfolio|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/quantum-to-add-lto-7-drives-to-expansive-tiered-storage-portfolio-300142992.html|website=PR Newswire|publisher=PR Newswire Association, LLC|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

Source 2: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/16/lto_has_15tb_gen_7_tape_format/

Formatted Reference 2: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Mellor|first1=Chris|title=LTO issues mighty seventh-generation 15TB tape format|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/16/lto_has_15tb_gen_7_tape_format/|website=The Register|publisher=The Register|accessdate=12 September 2016}}</ref>

2. Disk Backup and Recovery Products 2002-Present: We're requesting adding one sentence, before the last paragraph, to help bring the section up to date.

Addition: The DXi6900 deduplication appliance was named “Disk-Based Product of the Year: Enterprise” at the Storage Awards 2015 , and was a finalist in Storage magazine/SearchStorage.com’s 2014 Product of the Year Awards.

Source 1 (on the 2015 Storage Awards): http://www.storagemagazine.co.uk/storageawards/?page=winners2015

Formatted Reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|title=Winners 2015|url=http://www.storagemagazine.co.uk/storageawards/?page=winners2015|website=Storage Magazine|publisher=Storage Magazine UK|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

Source 2 (On the 2014 Product of the Year Awards): http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/feature/Quantum-Corp-DXi6900-Deduplication-Appliance

Formatted Reference 2: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Lelii|first1=Sonia|title=Quantum Corp. DXi6900 Deduplication Appliance|url=http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/feature/Quantum-Corp-DXi6900-Deduplication-Appliance|website=TechTarget|publisher=TechTarget|accessdate=30 August 2016}}</ref>

3. File System and Archive Products 2006-Present: StorNext is in its fifth generation. In the third paragraph update "fourth" to "fifth".

Before: Now in its fourth generation, StorNext has been in use for almost two decades in a number of vertical markets, including media and entertainment, government surveillance, oil and gas, and life sciences.

After: Now in its fifth generation, StorNext has been in use for almost two decades in a number of vertical markets, including media and entertainment, government surveillance, oil and gas, and life sciences.

JessicaWinski (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Edits to Lattus Wide Area Storage Products 2012-Present Section

I am submitting multiple requests for edits on behalf of Quantum Corporation as part of my work for Golin (formerly GolinHarris). In an effort to make the requested edits as clear as possible, I have broken them out by section. This request proposes several changes to the Lattus Wide Area Storage Products 2012-Present section of the article. Please let me know if there are any edits or issues with the requested edits below. Please note that the "source" listed for these edits links back to the company website, which shows how the storage products are named by the company (as Object Storage, not Wide Area Storage). Thanks in advance for the help!

1. Update the name of the section to reflect the correct name of the products.

Before: Lattus Wide Area Storage Products 2012-Present

After: Lattus Object Storage Products 2012-Present

Source: http://www.quantum.com/products/bigdatamanagement/lattus/index.aspx

Formatted Reference: <ref>{{cite web|title=Lattus Object Storage|url=http://www.quantum.com/products/bigdatamanagement/lattus/index.aspx|website=Quantum|publisher=Quantum Corporation|accessdate=6 September 2016}}</ref>

2. Add a sentence between the first and second paragraph to explain "wide area storage".

After/Add: The company initially referred to Lattus as “wide area storage,” a term coined by the company, but subsequently stopped using the term, reverting to “object storage.”

Source: http://www.quantum.com/products/bigdatamanagement/lattus/index.aspx

Formatted Reference: <ref>{{cite web|title=Lattus Object Storage|url=http://www.quantum.com/products/bigdatamanagement/lattus/index.aspx|website=Quantum|publisher=Quantum Corporation|accessdate=6 September 2016}}</ref>

3. Minor updates to the last paragraph to clarify the updated name of the product.

Before: The Lattus wide area storage solution is built on a version of object storage called fountain coding. Fountain code provides the same level of protection as Reed–Solomon error correction but with more data protection and higher efficiencies. Quantum sees wide area storage (a term coined by the company) as another storage tier complementing traditional disk and tape.

After: The Lattus solution is built on a version of object storage called fountain coding. Fountain code provides the same level of protection as Reed–Solomon error correction but with more data protection and higher efficiencies. Quantum sees object storage as another storage tier complementing traditional disk and tape.

Source: http://www.quantum.com/products/bigdatamanagement/lattus/index.aspx

Formatted Reference: <ref>{{cite web|title=Lattus Object Storage|url=http://www.quantum.com/products/bigdatamanagement/lattus/index.aspx|website=Quantum|publisher=Quantum Corporation|accessdate=6 September 2016}}</ref>

JessicaWinski (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

COI Request for Guidance/Updating Question

I am looking for some advice/guidance and help answering a question, as well as making changes to the Quantum Page. I'm working with Quantum Corporation directly and they'd like to assist in updating the company Wikipedia page so that it abides by Wikipedia's guidelines and is an updated, accurate resource for anyone looking for information on the company. While I have previously submitted edit requests to some of what is already existing on the page, I know that the page was flagged in Sept. 2016 due to needing citations and for needing some cleanup to help it read more neutral.

I've done some research to identify some of the missing sources but am having trouble finding anything, likely due to the age of some of the information. I understand that Wikipedia functions as an Encyclopedia and should contain as much historical background information as possible, but I'm curious at what point information needing citations should/would be removed if sources can't be identified? Is there an editor who does not have a COI who may have some time to either help answer this question or help get the page to a better place? I know there is more current information available on the company that is missing from the page and I'd love to be able to help get this page properly sourced and updated.

Interested in learning more about the editing process and hope to hear/learn from some experienced editors! Thanks in advance for your time. JessicaWinski (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

COI Request: Additional Sources

I am submitting additional sources to help clean up the page as part of my work with Golin for Quantum Corporation. Additional edit requests for the page are above, but my understanding is that the page needs to be cleaned up as-is before our other edit requests to help update the page can be addressed.

Much of the information on the page missing sources is quite old, so sources were hard to come by. I believe that the below sources are reliable sources, but hope to have an editor without a COI review. I am happy to add any approved sources to the page once an editor without at COI has reviewed them and provided feedback, if it is easier for the editor. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns about any of the citations provided below. Thanks in advance for the help!

Requested Edits

1. Hard Disk Products 1980-2001 Source: http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/view.php?s=stories&id=83 Formatted reference: <ref>{{cite web|last1=Patterson|first1=Jim|title=Founding of Quantum|url=http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/view.php?s=stories&id=83|website=Computer History Museum|publisher=Rob Dennison|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> 2. Early Products Section Q500 Source: http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/documents/doc-43a71f2dafbd5.pdf Q500 Formatted reference: <ref>{{cite book|title=Quantum Reference Guide|date=October 1985|page=23|url=http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/documents/doc-43a71f2dafbd5.pdf|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Plus Hardcard Source 1: http://pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=224&type=Peripheral Plus Hardcard Formatted reference 1: <ref>{{cite book|last1=Burke|first1=Steven|title=PC to Get Hard Disk on a Board|date=09-16-1985|publisher=Infoworld|isbn=0199-6649|page=5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hC8EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Quantum Plus HardCard|url=http://pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=224&type=Peripheral|website=Personal Computer Museum|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Plus Hardcard Source 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=hC8EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=#v=onepage&q=quantum&f=false Plus Hardcard Formatted reference 2: <ref>{{cite book|last1=Burke|first1=Steven|title=PC to get Hard Disk on a Board|date=Sept. 16, 1985|publisher=Info World|page=5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hC8EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&lr=#v=onepage&q=quantum&f=false|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Q280 Source: http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/documents/doc-452b370dba420.pdf Q280 Formatted reference: <ref>{{cite web|title=Quantum Set To Introduce New Series Of Half- Height Drives|url=http://corphist.computerhistory.org/corphist/documents/doc-452b370dba420.pdf|website=Computer History Museum|publisher=Computer Systems News|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> ProDrive Source: http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manuals/Quantum/Quantum%20ProDrive%2040AT%20and%2080AT%20-%20Installation%20Manual.pdf ProDrive Formatted reference: <ref>{{cite book|title=Quantum ProDrive® 40AT/SOAT Installation Manual|date=09-17-1990|publisher=Quantum Corporation|url=http://www.minuszerodegrees.net/manuals/Quantum/Quantum%20ProDrive%2040AT%20and%2080AT%20-%20Installation%20Manual.pdf|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> 3. Optical assist technology Source 1: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/quantum/brochures/Q2000_Brochure_1984.pdf Formatted reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|title=Quantum 2000 Series|url=http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/quantum/brochures/Q2000_Brochure_1984.pdf|website=Trailing-Edge|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Source 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=1T0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=quantum+introduces+prodrive&source=bl&ots=xpm_HtWg3J&sig=ANjmSq6krv24OqI-BKh4bwK-VTI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiilcfRx-bRAhVG8GMKHUA6CP4Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=quantum&f=false Formatted reference 2: <ref>{{cite book|last1=Graggs|first1=Tuseda|title=Quantum Offers 11 high-capacity hard disk drives|date=Oct. 14, 1991|publisher=InfoWorld|page=29|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1T0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=quantum+introduces+prodrive&source=bl&ots=xpm_HtWg3J&sig=ANjmSq6krv24OqI-BKh4bwK-VTI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiilcfRx-bRAhVG8GMKHUA6CP4Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=quantum&f=false|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> 4. Bigfoot Source 1: https://web.archive.org/web/19970713072452/http://www.quantum.com/src/whitepapers/big_paper/BigPaper.htm Formatted reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|title=QUANTUM BIGFOOT: SHAPING THE FUTURE OF STORAGE|url=https://web.archive.org/web/19970713072452/http://www.quantum.com/src/whitepapers/big_paper/BigPaper.htm|website=Wayback Machine|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Source 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=-p0J8W4KrksC&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q=quantum&f=false Formatted reference 2: <ref>{{cite book|last1=Poor|first1=Alfred|title=Quantum's Bigfoot: A Monster of A Hard Disk Value|date=June 11, 1996|publisher=PC Magazine|page=56|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-p0J8W4KrksC&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q=quantum&f=false|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Source 3: https://books.google.com/books?id=y-hfa6YSVFAC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=quantum%20bigfoot&f=false Formatted reference 3: <ref>{{cite book|title=Home PCs: What the Number Mean|date=Dec. 17, 1996|publisher=PC Magazine|page=170|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y-hfa6YSVFAC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=quantum%20bigfoot&f=false|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> 5. DEC Storage group acquisition Source 1: http://www.magnext.com/partnerspotlight/quantum Formatted reference 1: <ref>{{cite web|title=MAGNEXT PARTNER SPOTLIGHT|url=http://www.magnext.com/partnerspotlight/quantum|website=Magnext|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref> Source 2: http://www.company-histories.com/Quantum-Corporation-Company-History.html Formatted reference 2: <ref>{{cite web|title=Quantum Corporation|url=http://www.company-histories.com/Quantum-Corporation-Company-History.html|website=Company-Histories|publisher=Company-Histories.com|accessdate=7 March 2017}}</ref>

JessicaWinski (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantum Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913160547/http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=Seagate_Technology_To__Acquire_Maxtor_Corporation&vgnextoid=1e8a814fef83e010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD to http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.jsp?locale=en-US&name=Seagate_Technology_To__Acquire_Maxtor_Corporation&vgnextoid=1e8a814fef83e010VgnVCM100000dd04090aRCRD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing Updates to Intro Paragraph

Currently: Quantum Corporation is a manufacturer of data storage devices and systems, including tape drive and disk-based systems. The company's headquarters is in San Jose, California. From its founding in 1980 until 2001, it was also a major disk storage manufacturer (usually second-place in market share behind Seagate), and was based in Milpitas, California. Quantum sold its hard disk drive business to Maxtor in 2001 and now focuses on integrated storage systems.

Suggested: Quantum Corporation provides integrated storage technology and services designed to enable customers to capture, create and share digital content. Quantum’s storage platforms are used to preserve and protect high-resolution video, imagery, industrial IoT and other types of unstructured data. The company’s headquarters is in San Jose, California.

From its founding in 1980 until 2001, it was also a major disk storage manufacturer (usually second-place in market share behind Seagate), and was based in Milpitas, California. Quantum sold its hard disk drive business to Maxtor in 2001 and now focuses on integrated storage systems.

I am also proposing that we show that finance was secured before the delisting comment: 2018 - Quantum Corp. announced the successful completion of a refinance of its current debt facilities. Citation:

I am suggesting these changes as a Quantum employee, for full disclosure. @FlightTalk can you help me make these changes? Picard091488 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

References

@Picard091488: WP:Consensus needs to be reached first. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTalk is there any further action I need to take? Do I make the edit? 47.150.214.57 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

CARES Act

Originally called "Abuse of CARES Act", the section was renamed to remove derogatory words. Additionally, "With a head count of ~800 employees, this would be equivalent of receiving over $12,000 per employee. The program was setup to support small business, however, Quantum drew almost 10 times per employee compared to other corporations." was removed, as it's conjecture and does not have a source or citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picard091488 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Picard091488: Hi, I've partially reverted your edit to reinstate the criticism against Quantum since I believe it is grounded in the evidence provided by the cited NPR article (particularly as it describes the "vast majority of the loans handed out [as] considerably smaller, averaging about $250,000") . I've removed the references to a lower headcount and tagged the new information as Wikipedia:Citation_needed. Feel free to remove the "citation needed" tag once citations to the NAICS, PPP eligibility exemptions, and the 550 headcount have been added. As noted in #Proposing Updates to Intro Paragraph, you should seek Wikipedia:Consensus before making changes as an employee to avoid Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, especially if new facts are being added without clear citations. You might find the WP:RFC process useful for drawing attention to proposed edits on an article. Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Harley Watson (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As of writing, this section is still in a pretty sorry state. Seems to me like the edit war has reached a botched non-resolution. I believe the issues are as follows.

1. Should the section title include the word 'Abuse'. Based on the single source linked to, I believe not. The article does not clearly indict the applicants themselves; rather it is critical of the government's policy or implementation: "the Trump administration's failure to allocate funds properly". In any case it should be 'Abuse of PPP' not 'Abuse of CARES Act'.

2. The '10 times higher' sentence is wrong (according to the NPR source), and the SBA industry code section has no citation.

3. The section appears to include original research authored by an account with a small number of related edits, which have been repeatedly reverted, and has since fled the scene [2].

4. General discussion or criticism of the PPP seems better placed on its own page; Quantum was one of thousands of applicants and (based on the NPR source) not of singular significance.

I propose to delete this section entirely. Citruswinter (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree and vote keep, but certainly improvement with any corrections and more references would be welcome. - Indefensible (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Close connection flag

This flag is outdated (2019) and the primary sources that came from a Quantum website have been removed and/or replaced. Planning to remove the flag unless anyone else would like to weigh in. Tincoaster (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)