tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) (06/14/89)
First of all thanks to Raulin Olivera for sending the old drivers. And thanks to the others that offered. The net comes through again. As we all know SCO as upgraded to 2.3. I have a client that I advised to upgrade due to problems with a Five-star '386 on 2.2. Before I even ordered the upgrade from SCO I called Computone and asked if there was anything that I needed to do. I was told "No, in fact you don't need a copy of the drivers any longer. Xenix now has the drivers built in." Great!! When the 2.3 upgrade from SCO arrived I looked thru the docs. No mention of Computone boards. Growl. Called Jeff in Tech Support@Computone. Jeff sez "Sorry but the board needs to be upgraded, $150 and send me the board". There's nothing wrong with the board. I don't want it to be upgraded, only to work with SCO 2.3. Jeff sez "Some systems with work with the old drivers and some don't. Don't know why." After the postings to this group for help with copies of the drivers (yea Raulin) I try installing everything. Yes sports fans the ATvantage-8 will not initialize. Call Jeff again and get "Sorry but I told you it might not work. *UPGRADE*, you'll like it." Now my bitchin starts. Here we have a board that's workin great. No complaints. Just sits there and does it's job. All I want is to be able to use this board with 2.3. I don't want a $150 upgrade and a week worth of downtime. But instead I'm forced into something that I don't want. BTW, this machine was 1yr old in Feb of this year. Looks like to me that Computone saw a way to make a nice little bundle fast at the expense of past customers. Never again will I consider a Computone product. Pissed again. -- Tony Holden egsner!jassys!tony@texbell.swbt.com jassys!tony@killer.dallas.tx.us,
daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) (06/16/89)
In article <122@jassys.UUCP> tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) writes: >When the 2.3 upgrade from SCO arrived I looked thru the docs. No >mention of Computone boards. Growl. Called Jeff in Tech >Support@Computone. Jeff sez "Sorry but the board needs to be >upgraded, $150 and send me the board". There's nothing wrong with the >board. I don't want it to be upgraded, only to work with SCO 2.3. >Jeff sez "Some systems with work with the old drivers and some don't. >Don't know why." [...] On a recommendation from SCO (several years ago), we went with Emerald Systems cartridge tape drives, for all our then installed machines. Emerald supplied their own drivers for 2.1, SCO included Emerald support in 2.2, but when 2.3 rolled around, the Emerald was still on the supported list, but it failed to function with 2.3. After a bit of investigation, we were left with "... Well, we don't have an Emerald inhouse, so it wasn't really tested with 2.3. Since it worked with 2.2, we assumed it worked in 2.3 ...". That was back in January, and we have since gone to one of the Archive-compatible drives on our 2.3 machines. Last week we got a letter from Emerald Systems, offering a $200 board and cable upgrade to allow operation under SCO 2.3 (to what was originally a $1600 product [before tape drives were a commodity]). >Never again will I consider a Computone product. Ditto Emerald Systems (this is only the last of a long list of problems which needn't be aired here). -- Dave Hammond daveh@marob.masa.com
bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey) (06/18/89)
In article <122@jassys.UUCP> tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) writes: >As we all know SCO as upgraded to 2.3. I have a client that I advised >to upgrade due to problems with a Five-star '386 on 2.2. >Here we have a board that's workin great. No complaints. Just sits >there and does it's job. >All I want is to be able to use this board with 2.3. I don't want a >$150 upgrade and a week worth of downtime. But instead I'm forced >into something that I don't want. BTW, this machine was 1yr old in Feb >of this year. >Never again will I consider a Computone product. 1. It is YOUR job to ensure a peaceful migration from one version to another. (Including all boards...) 2. Hardware many times needs to be changed to reflect new features and updates in software. This is NOT a Computone specific issue. 3. If you were using an Atvantage board, you were not using the "latest" board to start with. Computone provides an excellent product, and like ANY vendor, is bound to do something that someone will not like. But BEFORE you flame a vendor (apparently to thwart anyone else from using a very good product), and generally post a message that "Yes, I didn't do my job, now someone else has to be the scape goat" give some consideration to its impact to others. If you are now unhappy because you had a $150 upgrade that you didn't tell you client, so be it. And if you don't want to use CompuTone anymore, so be it. But don't give everyone the impression that they are a bad company!! We are not affiliated with CompuTone (but do install them, over 20 at this time)...... Put your mind in gear, before you mouth... -- .. Computer Consulting Service .. Bob Willey .. .. P.O. Drawer 1690 .. uunet!consult!bob .. .. Easton, Maryland 21601 .. (301) 820-4670 .. ...............................................................
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (06/20/89)
[A consultant's customer has trouble with Computone on a 2.2->2.3 upgrade] According to bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey): >1. It is YOUR job to ensure a peaceful migration from one version > to another. (Including all boards...) True enough. Xenix changed internally from 2.2.3 forward in a way that renders old drivers unusable. A consultant should have known this. >2. Hardware many times needs to be changed to reflect new features > and updates in software. This is NOT a Computone specific issue. Quite. >3. If you were using an Atvantage board, you were not using the "latest" > board to start with. No matter. The ATvantage is still supported by the latest drivers. >If you are now unhappy because you had a $150 upgrade that you didn't >tell you client, so be it. And if you don't want to use CompuTone >anymore, so be it. >But don't give everyone the impression that they are a bad company!! Well, since you mention it... Their products have so many proble]ms it's not funny. Our experience with the Intelliport-6 is that it has a field mortality rate of over 50%. That's right, more than half of them died after we installed them; then we had to replace the dead ones from stock. Further, there is a hardware fix that Computone won't even >explain< to us! All they'll do is fix the boards we send them, with a several-week turnaround. And -- get this -- when we send one that fails under Xenix, they test it under DOS and if it works, they send it back unchanged. Aargh. Perhaps the company isn't bad, but their products leave a lot to be desired. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg | <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering | Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest!
palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (06/23/89)
From article <1989Jun16.122631.5847@marob.masa.com>, by daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond): > in 2.3 ...". That was back in January, and we have since gone to one > of the Archive-compatible drives on our 2.3 machines. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Does anyone know where I can get a device driver for the "Archive 5256" tape drive. (For sysV3.2) This is the tape drive with the long board controller. I believe the number on the controller is SA400. Or even a phone number to contact them would help. Thanks in advance. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda (A XBBS System) 2-lines BBS: (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200
jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye) (06/29/89)
In article <37@consult.UUCP>, bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey) writes: > > Computone provides an excellent product, and like ANY vendor, is bound > to do something that someone will not like. > But BEFORE you flame a vendor (apparently to thwart anyone else from > using a very good product), and generally post a message that "Yes, I disagree. Computone boards do not handle hardware handshaking very well. I had to replace every Computone board out in the field because most of our devices require hardware handshaking (I'm talking all 8 signals, RTS, CTS, DSR, DTR, DCD, RX, TX, GND). I replaced them with Corollary 8x4 Mux boards. All the problems with printers, terminals, input devices and modems were solved. I also found that the pass-thru print function can't handle a large amount of data especially with lots of terminals doing the same thing. One customer was losing parts of their print. Nobody at Computone could explain why it was happening. Replacing the board with a Corollary and in another instance a Digiboard solved that problem as well. > Put your mind in gear, before you mouth... A bit extreme, Bob. I think the guy was justified in his comments. At least that is what my experience tells me. I will never sell a Computone board again either. -- Jeff Tye ncar!noao!asuvax!hrc!swusrgrp!jeff southwest!/usr/group is the Southwest U.S. chapter of /usr/group
jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye) (06/29/89)
In article <5809@megatest.UUCP>, palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Does anyone know where I can get a device driver > for the "Archive 5256" tape drive. (For sysV3.2) > This is the tape drive with the long board controller. > I believe the number on the controller is SA400. > Or even a phone number to contact them would help. Xenix 2.3.2 and SCO UNIX 3.2 have drivers built in for that tape unit. Physically set the board at Type 1 (Archive), Interupt 2, DMA 1, and address 0200H. Then in the mkdev tape utility use the same settings except use Interupt 25 and voila` it works. Their new tape driver is the best I've seen. Real intelligent, grabs as much memory for buffering as it can, but will give it back if other processes need it. And faster than ever. Plus you don't have to rely on a third party for tape drivers. -- Jeff Tye ncar!noao!asuvax!hrc!swusrgrp!jeff southwest!/usr/group is the Southwest U.S. chapter of /usr/group
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (06/30/89)
In article <1232@swusrgrp.UUCP> jeff@swusrgrp.UUCP (Jeff Tye) writes: >In article <37@consult.UUCP>, bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey) writes: >> (Miscellaneous descriptions and anti-flame on Computone deleted - wjv) >I also found that the pass-thru print function can't handle a large amount >of data especially with lots of terminals doing the same thing. One customer >was losing parts of their print. Nobody at Computone could explain why it >was happening. Replacing the board with a Corollary and in another instance >a Digiboard solved that problem as well. I have a site with 5 Computones, and all new boards being installed are Anvils. Not that we had major problems with the Computones, but found the Anvils were doing the job better and faster at the same transmission speeds. I had some problems with Computone printing but finally got the system working okay, but it may not solve your problem. I have one AT style box with 7 users attached. Four are PC's running terminal emulation software with attached printers. I was losing data on longer printouts, but finally got it fixed (at least I haven't had any complaints lately). I had to set the pri parameters in the /atx subdirectory to make sure that it looked at the keyboard often enough. Set the time spent printing in relationship to looking at keystrokes too high and you seem to lose the handshake. The terminal sends x-off but the host misses it. I also had to set the buffer threshold in the terminal emulation. It had choices of none (as a terminal would) 64 bytes, 128, or 1024. I seem to remember that the 64 bytes xon/xoff threshold seemed to work fine. If you are running pure terminals that might be the problem - no buffering and swallowing the printer handshake. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP