> 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
>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
>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
>>
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
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.
>
>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
