Re: Tape Drive Compatibility

2000-08-21 Thread David Ross
> 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? I doubt Dan

Re: Tape Drive Compatibility

2000-08-18 Thread Matt Barkdull
>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. > >Regard

Re: Tape Drive Compatibility

2000-08-18 Thread Douglas K Wyman
>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 >>

Re: Tape Drive Compatibility

2000-08-18 Thread Cory Rau
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 >> 'par

Re: Tape Drive Compatibility

2000-08-17 Thread Eric Ullman
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. >

Re: Tape Drive Compatibility

2000-08-17 Thread Matt Barkdull
>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