ACB-2322B-8 and ISC

Karl Denninger karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM
Mon Nov 13 16:22:17 AEST 1989


In article <1240 at ssbn.WLK.COM> bill at ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes:
>In article <319 at abhg.UUCP> misko at abhg.UUCP (William Miskovetz) writes:
>>
>>> adaptec!neese writes:
>[ Adaptec testing goals ... ]
>>
>>I have to wish you luck in getting a 2322B-8 working with ISC.  4 months
>>ago I sent my ACB-2322B-8 controller and my Maxtor 8760E drive to ISC.
>
>Lemme be sure I have this straight...  FOUR MONTHS???  I can certainly
>sympathize with ISC's predicament trying to support all things for all
>combinations and they should be grateful for your generous loan of
>cutting edge hardware, but FOUR MONTHS???  That's ungrateful, unprofessional,
>and borders (IMHO) on criminal!

Yep.  I'd have to agree with that.

Then again, after six months ISC still was bitching and moaning about 
how a WD1006-V/SR2 board w/120MB fixed disk was considered "broken", even
though the interface to the system is standard WD1003-compatible, the
controller spoofs the drive type (correctly), SCO runs with it trouble-free,
and the >only< problem ISC had was BROKEN INSTALLATION ROUTINES -- that they 
either couldn't or wouldn't fix.

Then 2.0.2 came and it suddenly worked.  They still claimed the
drive/controller was "broken", and not recommended, but by Gods, it 
did (and does) at least work properly now -- although they wouldn't
officially admit it, OR admit that their install was broken in the first
place!

....

>>a 60MB drive has made me a little sour.  That and I have owned ISC versions
>>1.0.5, 1.0.6, and 2.0.2 and have never had ISC running on my system.  That
>>is well over a year of owning ISC without ever being able to use it.
>
>I'll concede that 15MHz ESDI and a 760Mb drive aren't necessarily mainstream
>'386 ware, but it would seem that if they wanted to support the drive and
>controller combination it could be done with a phone call or so to Maxtor
>and Adaptec.  Surely there's some incredibly complex technical problem here,
>or might they just be inept/rude?  They must have had some confidence that
>they could solve the problem before agreeing to borrow the stuff.

There's no big deal with 15Mhz ESDI, other than a higher number of sectors
per track.  That is the >only< difference the system sees, unless their
driver is doing something terribly inept and foolish.

The WD1007-SE2 boards, for example, support 15Mhz ESDI drives.  And SCO
works with them just fine and dandy, right out of the box.  Boot "N1" and
go.  No problem.

Now of course if while writing the drivers ISC was foolhardy and statically
allocated a 36 sector track buffer I can understand the problem.  I can also
understand that it's a ONE LINE fix in the driver code, or better yet, don't
do dumb things like that and allocate the memory out of system pool once you
boot and you >know< what the configuration of the disk is.

....

>I hadn't intended to be so lengthy, but what Bill Miskovetz is pointing out
>here is symptomatic of a larger problem than just a busted device driver
>(if it was ever intended to work in the first place).  There are the usual
>"fixed in the next release" canards, we're all used to that.  There's also
>the fact that it wasn't fixed, at least in the three releases he bought.

Was it ever claimed to work?  The RLL combination >was< to one customer of
ours, and when it didn't they did the "your hardware is broken" nonsense --
despite hour-long discussions with the Hollis support office about how we
had tested and retested the hardware, under DOS, Xenix, and with our own
certification equipment & programs, and >nothing< was wrong with it.  
The hardware >wasn't< and >isn't< broken.  That 2.0.2 suddenly
installed problem-free (without so much as touching the hardware) is 
testament to that fact.

>What disturbs me is that ISC, a Kodak company, seems to think that his
>equipment was donated equally "as-is" as their OS.  They don't let him have
>the fix (if there is one) and don't return his stuff.  I'm incredulous...
>Or I guess I would be if it wasn't true.  This IMHO deserves an official
>ISC response.  If they are conducting their business this way, their
>customers are entitled to an explanation.

They're entitled to a lot more than that, IMHO.

Try a working package, and a written apology.

--
Karl Denninger (karl at ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"



More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list