Dear Skip:

        It's my guess based on incomplete information that your
configuration is wrong.  You might want to take a look at
/var/log/messages, particularly if you've compiled it with error messages
enabled.
        I don't know about earlier versions, but the current version
appears to be fairly good at autodetecting the proper parameters.
There was also a response earlier today or yesterday that talked about how
to determine the proper setups.  I wouldn't depend on Win95 parameters --
I found that parameters that I thought were being used in OS/2 were in
fact bypassed, and autodetected parameters were used.

        HTH -- good luck!

        -frank

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, Anita wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Thanks to all who replied to my earlier email about the Exabyte Eagle.
> Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm simply not knowledgable enough to get it
> to work.  I've read everything I could find on ftape, but I must be
> missing something. It all seems so disconnected (the INSTALL, README,
> and the HOWTO), that I'm quite sure I'm probably missing something
> simple. I've managed to compile ftape successfully (one warning that
> recurred over and over, but I'm quite sure it was benign).  I've tried
> the insert script in modules, and that seems to work OK. I do get an
> error having to do with the parallel port line of insert, but I don't
> have a parallel port drive anyway, so I wasn't worried about it.  I've
> even tried installing line by line, changing the 0x360 to 0x370. I
> didn't try different DMA channels or IRQ's because I got these from
> Win95 where it works quite well.
> 
> I simply can't get anything out of it.
> I tried to do a rewind, and I hear a short hum, like the tape is
> spinning a little bit, but then I get an error that the device is not
> configured (/dev/ftape which is a link to something else which I
> forget).  Once it came back and said it was busy. Don't know how that
> happened.
> 
> I'm stumped.  What should I try? Is there something which might tell me
> what's going wrong?
> 
> Thanks,
> Skip Egley
> 
> 

Reply via email to