>My only point here, and I know I'm taking a while to get there, is that
>Dantz might want to consider being more specific regarding *which version*
>of the Colorado drive it supports. I did a search on the document for
>'parallel' just in case I missed a disclaimer in the document.
It could be that Dantz does not have the resources to test each drive
and unless the mfg of the drive wishes to bundle Retrospect, they
really don't care enough to send each software mfg a tape drive to
test.
I could see this vicious circle going around and around with this.
The bottom line is the bottom line though. It takes money to
research it and since there are hundreds of backup devices, Dantz can
only hope to program for certain standards.
Ah, aren't computers wonderful. :)
What confuses me is that why don't the tape drive mfg write their
software to be recognized by Windows as a tape device and all
Retrospect would have to be able to do is read and write to that
device through the Windows library... Wait, that's what is suppose
to happen, no?
--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
