My responses to Cory and Matt are below...
Cory Rau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
> I'm not looking for reimbursement or anything of the sort. Just wanted to
> warn others in case they were considering the drive I bought originally.
Well said, Cory!
You are correct--we should spell out that we don't support parallel
port-based tape or CD-R/RW drives (the dynamics of parallel port
communications just don't sit well with higher-end backup devices like tape
drives). We're in the process of adding that information to the website now.
Actually, now that I look, we already have!
Sorry for the trouble, but we thank you for raising the subject here!
Matt Barkdull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
That was Microsoft's idea with the modern Win32 OS. However, device driver
conflicts and troubles tend to be at the top of most people's problem list.
One of Retrospect for Windows' key advantages is that it has all the CD-R/RW
and tape drivers built into the software. Retrospect does not rely on a tape
or CD-R/RW drive's generic Windows driver. We use our own because it's
faster, more reliable, and offers better upgradability. This design
methodology is the reason Quantum found us faster to DLT 8000 than our
competitors. It's how Retrospect is able to automatically recognize and
configure itself for your device. It's why Retrospect was able to support
OnStream tape drives under Windows 2000 before OnStream had even completed
their own Win2K drivers!
We work hard to test as many devices as possible, and when we qualify a
device, you know it's going to work. What it really comes down to is a
reliability issue. We're just not going to trust (or be able to test)
drivers other than Retrospect's.
Your idea is a good one in theory, and so says Microsoft, but doing so would
undermine our ability to reliably qualify and support many backup devices.
Thanks, Matt. We appreciate you offering the suggestion.
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]