Jerome Fine replies:
I would not mind at all if there were physical differences that
were required by the TK70. But when the ONLY two differences
were the "II" after the name "CompacTape" and the price, I
tend to think that perhaps DEC was ...
Yes, in the case of ComapcTape I vs. II DEC simply ripped people,
but that's normal in the business. I am just amazed about how
much corporate customers are willin to let themselves be ripped
off by the Computer industry. How about a rack railkit for a
$10000 FibreChannel switch for which they charge an additional
$300 (for a few pieces of sheet metal with screws!)
In addition, I also heard that in some cases, the
TKQ50 controller
was unable to use the drive in a satisfactory manner. In those cases
the TKQ70 controller was needed for the TK50 drive. I have
actually tried the TKQ70 / TK50 combination and it works quite
well. It is still the TK50 drive with only the capacity of the TK50,
but it does operate a bit faster.
Yes, I tried it to in order to write a TK50 tape for my uVAX-II
from my VAX6k. Now that I write this, I never really
tried if
writing to the /dev/mt2l device would have done the trick with
writing TK50 format on TK70 drive. I doubt it would.
I realize that the TK70 drive arrived years after the
TK50. Does
anyone know if the device drivers that can use the TK50 can always
use the TK70 as well?
For all I know it's MSCP, so the driver may not be different.
-Gunther