pgn@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Paul G. Nevai) (09/07/88)
I understand that the updated HD Partition INIT for SUM 1.0 was posted in Compuserve. Where exactly on Compuserve? Thanks. Paul Nevai pgn@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu Department of Mathematics TS1171@ohstvma.BITNET The Ohio State University 73057,172.Compu$erve Columbus, OH 43210 1-(614)-292-5310.office U.S.A. 1-(803)-292-4975.secy
pgn@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Paul G. Nevai) (09/07/88)
Correction to bad posting. I understand that the updated HD Partition INIT for SUM 1.0 was posted in Compu$erve. Where exactly? Thanks. Paul Nevai pgn@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu Department of Mathematics TS1171@ohstvma.BITNET The Ohio State University 73057,172.Compu$erve Columbus, OH 43210 1-(614)-292-5310.office U.S.A. 1-(803)-292-4975.secy
Fabian@cup.portal.com (09/08/88)
Paul, Type GO LVTFORUM at the prompt and that will take you to Symantec's forum on CompuServe. They've recently changed Topic 4 from PC Ready! to SUM. The "new" updates are supposed to be uploaded soon. Shield 1.00e and HD Partition INIT are either in DL 0 or 4. Fabian Ramirez SuperMac Technology fabian@cup.portal.com sun!cup.portal.com!fabian
macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) (09/10/88)
In article <8848@cup.portal.com> Fabian@cup.portal.com writes: >Type GO LVTFORUM at the prompt and that will take you to Symantec's forum on >CompuServe. They've recently changed Topic 4 from PC Ready! to SUM. The "new" >updates are supposed to be uploaded soon. Shield 1.00e and HD Partition INIT >are either in DL 0 or 4. >Fabian Ramirez >SuperMac Technology (My response is directed to anyone at Symantec.) Isn't it about time that Symantec got its act together regarding SUM? Here we are talking about a version "e" revision of the Shield INIT. What ever happened to quality control? I have gotten two revisions of Shield via USENET. I started using the first revision, experienced no difficulties with it, but then a second revision popped up in my mail. So I installed it, promptly tried to change the defaults (using Disk Clinic) and found that the doggone thing would not accept changes to the default! I can't believe that nobody at Symantec tried such a common operation on this update! For shame. Now I am back to using the original INIT that came with the package, and I'm a bit concerned over installing yet another "fix." I suppose that it is best to update, as there must be problems in the original that I have not yet run into, but can the user reasonably assume the next "fix" will be any better, given Symantec's track record with SUM? I hope Symantec has tested these new updates a bit more thoroughly than previous updates. A software company as big as Symantec ought to do better than this. (Microsoft ought to also, but they are beyond hope!) By the way, how come no update notices have been sent to registered users? Is it because these updates have all been "beta" versions? Jim -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jim --> macak@lakesys.UUCP (Jim Macak) {Standard disclaimer, nothin' fancy!} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<