Talk:RK05

Not sure about the phrasing here:

Occupying 10.5 inches of space in a standard 19 inch computer rack, the drive was competitive at the time but would now be viewed as laughably small, having only twice the storage capacity of a typical floppy disk.

I think you might as well add similar text to the top of every single technology related article if that's the style you're looking for. It isn't in keeping with an encyclopaedia, and it's fairly implicit when you're dealing with an article about a 30 or 40 year old piece of computer hardware. I think we could draw a comparison with the data density given the size of the disc compared with something like a 3.5" floppy or zip/superfloppy or a modern hard disc platter, but should avoid "laughably small"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.137.98.109 (talk • contribs) .

I dunno. I laugh about the capacity of an RK05 every time I think about what I used to store on "my" RK05 packs. (For example, the "terabyte" of RAID that I just bought packs data at about 14 million times the volumetric density of an RK05 drive; that's certainly worth a laugh.) But if you feel that "laughably small" doesn't belong, well, this is Wikipedia so you know what to do: be bold and change it.

Atlant 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that two drives was the minimal practical configuration seems incorrect. IIRC DEC configured many machines standardly with only a single drive. This would preclude backup and restore if the machine had no other bulk devices, but a machine with a 1/2" tape drive would be quite practical. I purchased and ran such a PDP11 for a couple years in the early 1970s. Did eventually purchase a second RK05, of course.

User:Wolfamade — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]