On 8/17/00 8:53 PM, Matt Barkdull at [EMAIL PROTECTED] stated:

>> 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.

I think you missed my point here.  I'm not arguing that Dantz *should
support* parallel drives...I'm merely suggesting that if they're not going
to support them, they should state it explicitly in all 'supported devices'
documents so people like me don't purchase incompatible drives.


To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to