moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (08/26/89)
Some added comments and information... In article <11238@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM> dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: >I recently bought S.U.M. 1.1 from Symantec. This note details my >experiences with that product. > >Major gripe #1: Installation This is the one I'd agree with you on 100%. I tried using the installer in 1.1 (I already had bought 1.0) to install various things, and it goofed up almost every time. Mostly, I remember it installing HD Partition when I hadn't instructed it to. I finally performed it manually. UPS tells me SUM 2.0 is here; I'll pick it up on Monday and let you know if that's been improved any. >Major gripe #2: HDTuneup > >From what I can tell, this program appears to take a very >short-sighted view of disk management. My theory is that for each >file it looks for a block of contiguous space large enough to hold it, >then moves the file to that space. (This theory is supported by the >illustration on page 4-3.) Unless it is carefully done, the cost of >defragmenting files this way is that free space gets really seriously >fragmented, so that new files are harder and harder to fit in; this >will likely result in poorer future performance, and may well be >inferior to the System's native algorithm. My experience with >"Install Guardian Volume Save" certainly suggests that this is the >case. I'd agree with this as well; 1.1 definitely lacks a feature that Disk Express has, and which I find very useful, namely re-contiguating (is that a word?) the free space. Happily, SUM 2.0's version of HDTuneup is supposed to have added this feature. (Which is why I sold my copy of DiskExpress.) >Major gripe #3: The Manual > >The manual is obviously written for "the rest of them." I understand >and appreciate the value of such an approach, but in this case the >manual carefully rations out not quite enough information to actually >use the program. I'd have to disagree here; I found the manual to be easy to use when I've had to resort to it -- I usually just follow the instructions in Disk Clinic, however. More importantly, several novice Mac users I know have been very pleased with the manual; what's interesting is that after their initial use of the recovery system, they tend to get their information from Disk Clinic instead of the manual. >I have not tried to use HD partition. The manual tells all about >which buttons to push; but I'm willing to bet that the disk has to be >empty or nearly empty in order to create a partition. Maybe not; the >manual doesn't say. From the chatter on the net I gather that S.U.M. >creates some kind of "pseudo-partitions"--I don't know, but my new >hard disk came with UniMac partitioning software, so I don't ever plan >to try to use Symantec's HD partition. The version in 1.1 is quite solid -- I've been using it instead of Hard Disk Partition, and if it's not quite as bullet-proof as FWB's product, it's close. Like Hard Disk partition, it requires a contiguous free space on the disk equal to the size of the partition. And, as you've pointed out, HDTuneup in 1.1 doesn't contiguate free space -- you need Disk Express. Symantec has obviously seen the need for this function and added it to 2.0. >Minor gripes > >Included with S.U.M. were copies of Font/DA Mover 3.6 (not 3.8) and >TeachText 1.1 (not 1.2). I don't understand why newly-purchased >software can't include the latest versions of system software. Older >versions of Fon/DA Mover do not understand NFNTs and can screw up your >newer fonts. I believe that was the current version when 1.1 was released. I hardly expect Symantec to send out the same software with new Apple System Software, especially when the purpose of Font/DA Mover in this package is to install DAs, e.g. HD Partition. They do mention in the manual that you should use the latest version of this utility. >The Signature Files include files for Word 1.0 and Word 3.0; however, >I am using Word 4.0. Perhaps the Signature File for Word 3.0 will also >work for 4.0? I guess I'll never know unless/until I have a disk >crash severe enough to require the use of Signature Files. Again, Word 4.0 wasn't out when 1.1 was released. >(2) I have version 1.1; if I get a free upgrade to 2.0 I'll post a >brief addendum (but I certainly won't spend any money to upgrade!); You will get a free upgrade. You'll probably need to mail in a copy of your dated receipt to prove purchase date, but that's about it. ----- My general impression is that you'd like more detailed, technical information from SUM about what's going on than is currently provided. I can understand the sentiments, though they aren't mine, but I would suspect that the majority of the people using it -- your average Mac user who uses the Mac to perform a task, and doesn't want to be bothered with the technical details -- don't share them. They just want to have the disk protected, and hang the technical details. My general sentiments are that Symantec has once again taken a hard look at what they did wrong in their previous version and rectified it in an upgrade. The addition of the backup package in SUM II doesn't interest me too much, but I can understand the appeal of it to the first-time purchaser, as an "One-Stop-Shopping" hard disk maintenance kit. As I've said before, I'm very impressed with this company. Selections from TOP 10 LESSONS OF WOODSTOCK: 10. Not everybody looks good naked. 8. Joe Cocker really should stick with decaffeinated coffee. 6. If you've got 72 hours to kill, you can probably find room for Sha Na Na. -- Late Night with David Letterman --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, hplsla, thebes, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (08/29/89)
In article <10667@fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: >Some added comments and information... [Re my long article flaming S.U.M. 1.1] I wrote: >>The manual is obviously written for "the rest of them." I understand >>and appreciate the value of such an approach, but in this case the >>manual carefully rations out not quite enough information to actually >>use the program. Jeff replied (in part): >My general impression is that you'd like more detailed, technical >information from SUM about what's going on than is currently provided. I >can understand the sentiments, though they aren't mine, but I would suspect >that the majority of the people using it -- your average Mac user who uses >the Mac to perform a task, and doesn't want to be bothered with the >technical details -- don't share them. They just want to have the disk >protected, and hang the technical details. You are right in that I do rather like to know what's going on behind the scenes; I have always found that mechanisms (in the most general possible sense) work better and last longer if I know something about how they work. However, I bought S.U.M. because I "just want to have the disk protected." In my case, at least, the documentation was out-and-out inadequate. Following the manual DIDN'T WORK. It didn't seem to me that my case was particularly unusual (20 Meg badly fragmented hard disk). I think I got S.U.M. going correctly, but it required drawing on my (rather shaky) previous knowledge. My complaint was specifically that the information provided was inadequate for (what I considered to be) normal use of the program. I suggested a technical appendix, rather than putting more technical information into the body of the text, because I agree with you about average Mac users--such as I am myself, when things work right. >My general sentiments are that Symantec has once again taken a hard look at >what they did wrong in their previous version and rectified it in an >upgrade. The addition of the backup package in SUM II doesn't interest me >too much, but I can understand the appeal of it to the first-time purchaser, >as an "One-Stop-Shopping" hard disk maintenance kit. As I've said before, >I'm very impressed with this company. I am very impressed with other parts of the company. >You will get a free upgrade. You'll probably need to mail in a copy of your >dated receipt to prove purchase date, but that's about it. I sent in my warranty card, and I hope to hear from them....I would really like to report that SUM II answer my complaints. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. * 20th anniversary? Yeah, but it's 17 years since the LAST man on the moon! *