Differences Between CompacTape I, II, III

<> Actually shouldn't the list read more like: <> <> TK50 CompacTape 95MB 350 o <> TK70 CompacTape II 270MB 350 o <> TK?? CompacTape III (DLT) 20GB/40GB 1540 o <> TK87 CompacTape IV (DLT) 35GB/70GB 1850 o < <Jerome Fine replies: < <Special thanks to Chuck McManis and Zane Healy for the <URL and the information. < <Based on the data within the above tables (and at the URL), <there seems no doubt that DEC practised their usual <antics back in the 1980s when they practised their standard <marketing policy of adding "nothing". From my experience A foolish remark. The change and added "nothing" as you called it was the TK50 media was formatted (init'ed) and verified at the higher bit density. It was also marked differently so these with TK70 and TK50s in their sites would know them apart (and DEC would in their stockrooms too). TK 50 had been around for a few years before TK70 and was not enjoying a good rep as the early tk50 drives where to say the least unreliable. They are fixed and the TK70 was really the DLT standard setter for reliability in field use. Marketing really didn't want the two confused. The TKs be came part of Quantum in the big sell off and quantum really wanted divorce them selves from the TK50 or any TKmumble plus moving the performance ahead. So there is a lot of "nothing" between the lines. Allison