Sure, as I mentioned in the linked thread: if you've got 'em, use 'em. If you don't have 'em, it's not worth getting into it. A 7.5NAD diskette and a serial cable cost less than what you might spend setting up a not-already-extant Zip ecosystem and works on everything supporting SuperDisk. a 6.0.8 NAD could probably be set up for use on, say, the Plus.
There's also options like the floppyemu and of course the SCSI2SD.
You can also get a CD and boot 7.1 or 7.5 with network access that way, and given how cheap CD-Rs are, you can just label and keep the CD.
To the extent that I think it's worth litigating this again, I'm going to address this point because it's new relative to the other thread:
Melding of Bernoulli tech with acquired optical tracking tech is what wound up being the Zip, which blew Syquest out of the water as a major contender in the removables marketplace.
As far as I know, neither Zip nor Bernoulli had optical tracking. That was functionality LS-120 ("laser servo") had. Bernoulli's big deal was that it pumped air through the drive and the cartridge to force physical separation between the drive head and the spinning platter, making it so that the thing click-of-death zip disks did, the drive heads would rip through the disk media, Bernoulli drives were physically incapable of doing.
Because of that, Bernoulli is reputed to be near physically indestructible. Bernoulli is also reputed to be faster than Zip, also it ultimately shipped up to 230 megabytes. I wonder if there's any post-mortem out there that talks about why Iomega killed Bernoulli. It stayed onboard as the high end professional product for the first couple years of Zip's life. (While Iomega was also still making home-focused tape backup derived from Travan technology, along with MO and Syquest 44/88/105-compatible cartridges.)
Syquest stayed relevant for a couple more years, but, yes, ultimately they floundered and couldn't ship a reliable enough next-generation product and folded. Had Syquest made it, their entry would've been a 3.5-inch cartridge that held around 4.7 gigs. I forget what pricing was supposed to be like, but this was going to be their competitor to Jaz 2GB.
Iomega made Zip worse at every step of the way by trying to cost-reduce the drives enough to make the razor blade model work. In the end, they just guessed wrong how people would use it and that caused lots of problems for the company. As I mentioned in the other thread, they fired their CEO over the issue.
Iomega didn't give the drives to Apple for free.
Doesn't have to be $0 for it to be
dumping.
Ultimately though,
---
I'd be highly interested if you can come up with a source that suggests there was a version of zip, as a technology, that was going to be as solid as you claim it was. Everything I've ever been able to find suggests otherwise. I've literally never heard of Zip outside of it being a cost-reduced technology aimed mainly at consumers. For everyone saying they haven't had problems with it in modern times (I'm in that group by the way) the usage patterns I see are way lower than what Zip is documented as having been "for" in the '90s and there's also a certain amount of survivor bias: The drives and cartridges that are still around are more or less the ones that didn't die 10-15 years ago.
That doesn't mean that it was a good technology or that it's the best choice for these tasks or that, again, we should be endorsing its introduction into environments that don't already have it.
In this specific thread, the problem is that jt is always quick to, at any mention of zip whatsoever, encourage someone to build up an entire zip ecosystem
for no good reason. The machine in question is a
power macintosh g4. Those computers have firewire, usb, ide, and PCI slots, and near universally: working CD and DVD drives. There's
any number of better solutions available for them. OP mentioned no context whatsoever, just a single isolated machine with a single isolated component failure.
] 
