sinclair@aerospace.aero.org (William S. Sinclair) (05/26/89)
I am puzzled by the difference in storage capabilities between the two. The little TK-70 can hold 296 MB of data, as compared to only 140 MB for the reel-to-reel at 6250 BPI. Some simple computations reveal that the reel-to-reel has about TWICE the media storage area. So assuming that both storage technologies are about state-of-the-art, why can't the 6250 BPI reel-to-reel hold about twice as much, rather than only half? The TK-70's are 600 feet long by 1 inch wide, which is 7200 sq. inches, while the reel-to-reels are 2400 feet by 1/2 inch wide= 14400 sq. inches. Bill S.
envbvs@epb2.lbl.gov (Brian V. Smith) (05/26/89)
In article <51900@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, sinclair@aerospace.aero.org (William S. Sinclair) writes: > > I am puzzled by the difference in storage capabilities between the two. > The little TK-70 can hold 296 MB of data, as compared to only 140 MB > for the reel-to-reel at 6250 BPI. Some simple computations reveal that > the reel-to-reel has about TWICE the media storage area. So assuming that > both storage technologies are about state-of-the-art, why can't the 6250 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why do you make this assumption? 6250 tape drives have been around for more than 10 years. That is dinosaur technology. What is surprising is that nobody has produced a reel-to-reel drive of higher density by now. > BPI reel-to-reel hold about twice as much, rather than only half? > The TK-70's are 600 feet long by 1 inch wide, which is 7200 sq. inches, ^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, they are 1/2 inch wide (HI/TC, another name for these drives, means half-inch tape cartridge). > while the reel-to-reels are 2400 feet by 1/2 inch wide= 14400 sq. inches. > > Bill S. _____________________________________ Brian V. Smith (bvsmith@lbl.gov) Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory We don't need no signatures!