🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan7.025054.721@mlb.semi.harris.com> sonny@charybdis.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis) writes:
>>richk@grebyn.com (Richard Krehbiel) writes:
>>
>>>What feature is it that makes the DC2120 tape store 120M on a Jumbo
>>>250 and only 60M on a Jumbo 120?  Does QIC-80 have twice as many
>
>	Isn't the only difference between the Jumbo 250 and the
>Jumbo 120 that the 250 employs on-the-fly data compression algorithms
>(sorta like Stacker) to squeeze roughly twice as much data (on the average)
>onto the tape as the 120?
>
>	Aren't the on-tape capacities and recording hardware the same?
>Just that software (firmware?) has squeezed the redundancy from the
>data presented to the 250?
>

I'm sure they both do.  I have a Jumbo 120 drive.  It gets 60megs on a
DC2120 tape without compression and "up to 120megs" with the compression
included in the jumbo software.  The software for the 120 and 250 are 
the same.  However, I get effective compression on my game drive of
about 1.1:1, rather than 2:1, and about 1.4:1 on my other drive.  I've
never seen anything like a 2:1 average compression out of my drive.

>	Are OS/2 drivers yet available for the Jumbos?

Nope, and yes.  Colorado will sell you Sytos (sp?) software for $99 to
support OS/2 2.0.  You can find more info on comp.os.os2.misc, where
it's discussed rather often.  I do not run OS/2 2.0, YET, until I upgrade
to a larger hard drive (last weekend, I upgraded a 386sx-16 motherboard
to a 486DX-33).  The lack of Colorado support for OS/2 was also prominent
in my reluctance to convert.  I've become a win3.1 user, for lack of tape
support.
--

-- 
__
"Even if you're on the right track, 
you'll get run over if you don't move."  --Will Rogers.

terry@dadstoy.gbdata.com	Terry Stockdale		Houston, Texas