support@ism780c.isc.com (Support account) (11/17/89)
We would like to clarify the events recently discussed over the net regarding Bill Miskovetz and the assistance ISC provided him in reaching a solution to the problem he had utilizing 386/ix with his specific Maxtor 8760E hard drive and Adaptec 2322B-8 controller. ISC did request the use of the drive because it had too many defects to work on 2.0.2. The problem was related to Mr. Miskovetz's specific drive, and the number of defective tracks/sectors involved. Release 2.0.2 does in fact work with, and is compatible with the Adaptec 2322B-8 controller and most existing Maxtor drives. While working to make Mr. Miskovetz's drive work with the next release of 386/ix (release 2.2), INTERACTIVE recognized that other very large drives might require the same level of defect tolerance demanded by this particular Maxtor/Adaptec combination and worked to build that capability into the 2.2 product. There was regular communication between ISC support and Mr. Miskovetz during this period without any perceived animosity on the part of the customer. INTERACTIVE's intent, in all instances, is to assist customers in the successful utilization of our product, as well as provide a product with increasing integrity as it matures. When this necessitates the cooperative resources of both the customer and ISC, we seek to employ those resources as quickly as possible, and to cause as little inconvenience to the customer as is feasible. In speaking directly with Mr. Miskovetz today, he did not indicate a feeling of great negligence on the part of ISC, or express a critical need for the return of the hardware. He was very appreciative of our efforts, although frustrated at not being able to yet use the product. He is satisfied with the plan for getting him up and running with his hardware and 386/ix. Bill Miskovetz is one customer that had a problem pertaining to an agressive use of Unix on PC hardware. INTERACTIVE worked with him, and with his cooperation in loaning the necessary equipment, was able to support his specific environment as well as improve the general nature of our software for future customers. We look forward to continuing this close association with our customers. Mike Alcorn Manager, Product Support INTERACTIVE
bill@inebriae.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) (11/17/89)
I think that I led the charge on this, if not I was among the first to demand an explanation. Credit goes to ISC for responding and to Mike Alcorn for signing the article. I realize that there are some things that are not appropriate for ISC employees to say when posting from ISC sites and essentially speaking for ISC. I doubt that "restriction" (that's not the right word, I can't think of one) precludes saying that it was a foul up or that they'll work hard to keep it from happening again, but it might or they might not want to say that. There are some things in the article that I would like clarified further since they seem to contradict each other or are otherwise confusing (to me). In article <36506@ism780c.isc.com> support (Signed Mike Alcorn) writes: > >We would like to clarify the events recently discussed over the net regarding >Bill Miskovetz and the assistance ISC provided him in reaching a solution to >the problem he had utilizing 386/ix with his specific Maxtor 8760E hard drive >and Adaptec 2322B-8 controller. ISC did request the use of the drive because >it had too many defects to work on 2.0.2. The problem was related to Mr. ^^^^^^^^ How many are "too many"? Bigger drives always have more defects, is there a limit to the size of the bad track table? To the number of alternate tracks available for assignment? If so, what is it so that we don't buy a drive with more than that? >Miskovetz's specific drive, and the number of defective tracks/sectors >involved. Release 2.0.2 does in fact work with, and is compatible with the >Adaptec 2322B-8 controller and most existing Maxtor drives. Then let me propose this. It doesn't help anyone without net access or who doesn't know anyone with net access, but it would be helpful. My suggestion is not without precedent, from time to time and again this weekend I publish a list of VGA's and monitors known-to-work with ISC X-windows. It saves the ISC people answering every single question from people when it comes up between postings. Maybe Bill Miskovetz would consent to being the custodian of a similar list of drive and controller combinations known-to-work with 386/ix. Since I can't/shouldn't volunteer him, maybe someone else would volunteer. The VGA/monitor list saved me countless dollars and headaches, hopefully others as well. I passed on some seemingly really good deals based on the list, we could do as well with drives. That list would have helped me and the tech support people when I tried to bring up 2.0.2 with ESDI's and an ancient motherboard BIOS that couldn't. >While working to make Mr. Miskovetz's drive work with the next release of >386/ix (release 2.2), INTERACTIVE recognized that other very large drives >might require the same level of defect tolerance demanded by this particular >Maxtor/Adaptec combination and worked to build that capability into the 2.2 >product. Is the Maxtor/Adaptec combination a combination of models or that particular drive with that particular controller (a combination of serial numbers)? I am not nit picking here, it's an important distinction. I'll speculate that you're saying that this model Maxtor is one other than "most existing Maxtor drives" that work with 2.0.2? >There was regular communication between ISC support and Mr. Miskovetz during >this period without any perceived animosity on the part of the customer. I can not question the accuracy of the remark, I was not there and Bill Miskovetz told me in email that he called regularly although ISC did not call him. I can buy "without any perceived animosity" because he seems to be a very laid back sort, I got some BTU's for screeching when his article seemed so calm and matter of fact. Even accepting the facts as reported, it stresses my sense of reason that four months might not generate some feelings of embarrassment on ISC's part for being unwilling, unaware, or unable to apply the resources to solve the problem and return the equipment. If I am mistaken then we have all learned something. >INTERACTIVE's intent, in all instances, is to assist customers in the >successful utilization of our product, as well as provide a product with >increasing integrity as it matures. When this necessitates the cooperative >resources of both the customer and ISC, we seek to employ those resources as >quickly as possible, and to cause as little inconvenience to the customer as >is feasible. Whoops! Whoah! I just can't rationalize "quickly as possible" that easily, nor "as little inconvenience to the customer". I was told that the drive was used to work on problems other than the compatibility issues or lack of tolerance to large numbers of defects. I heard that it was used to debug other things. That's none of my business, but together with four months' elapsed time just doesn't wash with "quickly as possible". The drive was sent to Santa Monica overnight air express, that sounds "quickly as possible". It also suggests that prompt attention and return would cause "as little inconvenience to the customer as is feasible". I can't put words in Miskovetz' mouth, so I'll use my own. If someone had my drive until the warranty was run out, I would feel more than a "little inconvenience". Was the drive sufficiently defective to return under warranty? I don't know, I'm not a drive expert, but Miskovetz never got a shot. I can ask whether or not he asked once or more that the analysis be expedited and the drive returned? No, those words don't paint over common sense and responsible business practice. If it was a case of terrible communications or just a collosal screw up, please say that very near to "quickly as possible" and "little inconvenience" and say that those usual objectives were not met. >In speaking directly with Mr. Miskovetz today, he did not indicate a feeling >of great negligence on the part of ISC, or express a critical need for the >return of the hardware. He was very appreciative of our efforts, although >frustrated at not being able to yet use the product. He is satisfied with >the plan for getting him up and running with his hardware and 386/ix. So be it, the rest of us, I suspect, would not be as patient. I wasn't party to the conversation so I'll have to accept the report as written. My interpretation of email and a phone conversation with Bill indicated that the drive has been gone so long that he wanted ISC to take as much time as need be so that (emphasis is mine) IT WOULD WORK. I'd feel the same way, a few more days to be sure, after four months, wouldn't matter. He expressed a "critical need" to me, but tempered by his desire for it to work. >Bill Miskovetz is one customer that had a problem pertaining to an agressive >use of Unix on PC hardware. Whoops again... What was he doing that was "agressive use of UNIX on PC hardware"? Seriously, we need to know so that we don't inadvertantly do something that seems reasonable to us but is too aggressive for UNIX or for 386/ix. If there are aggressive maximae, licensees and prospective licensees have a need to know. >INTERACTIVE worked with him, and with his >cooperation in loaning the necessary equipment, was able to support his >specific environment as well as improve the general nature of our software >for future customers. We look forward to continuing this close association >with our customers. > >Mike Alcorn >Manager, Product Support >INTERACTIVE I ask the net's indulgence for having included the entire text, but I didn't want to risk taking anything out of context. If Mike Alcorn is happy with the way ISC's personnel handled the situation and Bill Miskovetz feels that he was treated in a fair and professional fashion then so be it, I'm a sore head, none of my business, I'll shut up. I'm distressed if that is the case, and I will be much more cautious in my purchase of INTERACTIVE products and my level of expectation for product support. I'm not satisfied with the report but I'm not the one to satisfy, Bill Miskovetz is. I'll shut up or move to email with this last request. Would Bill Miskovetz please report his account with respect to Mike Alcorn's report? And please add whether or not the drive was returned (ISC didn't say) and whether or not it works (ditto). I'm just not convinced we got "the rest of the story". -- Bill Kennedy {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
misko@abhg.UUCP (William Miskovetz) (11/17/89)
I have been rather quiet on this since my initial posting, but I have to reply to some of this. I had written a long (100+ lines) article on my experiences but chose not to post it. I'll e-mail it if anyone is interested. It contains fun facts like system configuration, why 1.05, 1.0.6, 2.0.1, and 2.0.2 didn't work, and my point of view of what has gone on since I sent in my drive. Hopefully, no one will be interested in such a dull report... In article <36506@ism780c.isc.com>, support@ism780c.isc.com (Support account) writes: > ... > ISC did request the use of the drive because > it had too many defects to work on 2.0.2. The problem was related to Mr. > Miskovetz's specific drive, and the number of defective tracks/sectors > involved. Release 2.0.2 does in fact work with, and is compatible with the > Adaptec 2322B-8 controller and most existing Maxtor drives. I am somewhat confused by this. The Maxtor 8760E is a 760 MB (unformatted) drive. The defect list from Maxtor listed approx. 37 defects. (I can't be exact, the defect list is with the drive) I have a couple of 72 MB drives in another system (MFM) that have at least 30 defects on them and they work fine. I guess I don't understand why ~37 defects are too many. IF ISC has discovered that my drive has more that ~37 defects, I will be rather irritated as this is the first I heard of it and the warranty on the drive expired while ISC had it. Second, the 2322B-8 is a 15 MHz controller (although I think it will do 10 MHz). I believe any drive that is 15 MHz is going to be large so I can't believe that it can be stated that it will work with most Maxtor drives. > ... > There was regular communication between ISC support and Mr. Miskovetz during > this period without any perceived animosity on the part of the customer. > INTERACTIVE's intent, in all instances, is to assist customers in the > successful utilization of our product, as well as provide a product with > increasing integrity as it matures. When this necessitates the cooperative > resources of both the customer and ISC, we seek to employ those resources as > quickly as possible, and to cause as little inconvenience to the customer as > is feasible. Well, there was regular contact. I called them every other week or so. I have the phone bills to prove it. ISC *NEVER* called me except this week after I posted. In my phone conversation with Mr. Alcorn, we both agreed that there was a breakdown in communication. Perhaps I should have called him when I was never called, but they certainly should have called me at least once in a while. One of their support people went as far as to tell me that he was going to put a Post-It in his machine so that he would remember to call me once a week. Did he ever call? No! I must admit, there was/is no animosity towards them. I attempted to stress that I wanted them to keep the drive as long as necessary for them to get me a working system, BUT, I did let them know that I was letting them have my disk from my primary system and that I could make do with the 60 MB I replaced it with but I was running out of disk space too often. I had hoped that would be enough to let them know I was hoping this could be done quickly. Especially since I over-nighted the drive to them. (Anyone ever pay $80 to overnight a disk drive? Yeah, I feel silly.) > In speaking directly with Mr. Miskovetz today, he did not indicate a feeling > of great negligence on the part of ISC, or express a critical need for the > return of the hardware. He was very appreciative of our efforts, although > frustrated at not being able to yet use the product. He is satisfied with > the plan for getting him up and running with his hardware and 386/ix. True, no feeling of great negligence. Perhaps a little unprofessional in that if I am told I will be called, I expect to be called. And if someone has $4,000 of my equipment, I expect them to tell me they received it, let alone tell me that they are working on the problem. As for a critical need, in our conversation, we discussed sending the drive back that day, or later this week. A couple of days after 4 months was not going to matter to me. I DO appreciate the effort ISC has put into getting me a working system, and I am satisfied with the plan we put together this week for getting me up and running with my hardware. But, I am a little (ok, maybe more than a little) disappointed at how long it took, but I really wanted a working UNIX. Xenix ran fine with the drive, but I preferred ISC or AT&T UNIX. > > Bill Miskovetz is one customer that had a problem pertaining to an agressive > use of Unix on PC hardware. INTERACTIVE worked with him, and with his > cooperation in loaning the necessary equipment, was able to support his > specific environment as well as improve the general nature of our software > for future customers. We look forward to continuing this close association > with our customers. > > Mike Alcorn > Manager, Product Support > INTERACTIVE I guess I don't see my use as "aggressive". I bought a large drive hoping to use it for DOS, OS/2, and UNIX. DOS and OS/2 worked fine. Xenix worked fine but I was not interested, but no ISC UNIX. I believe that after I had sent my drive to ISC, someone in support mentioned that there were some European customers with a similar problem. Maybe I dreamed that. Anyway, ISC did work with me and hopefully soon I will be able to say, "Yes, I have my hardware and I have a running system." Hopefully, ISC will also improve their communications with their customers. Even AT&T, as much as I have disliked their tech support, followed up their support calls with a survey to see how well you were dealt with, how promptly, etc. Bottom line: I appreciate ISC's efforts, I don't want this to get blown out of proportion, I hope ISC will improve it's customer contact, especially when they have a piece of the customers hardware, and I will be very glad when I get my hardware back IF it has a working OS. If it doesn't, time to see if INTEL really deserves to be in the UNIX OS market 1/2 :-) With respect to customer contact, e-mail would have been sufficient. Even automated mail once a week saying "yes, we still have an open trouble report from you". I am certainly glad to see ISC taking a more active roll on the net. I hope they continue to do so. Bill Miskovetz {uunet!lll-winken, apple!mathworks, pyramid}!abhg!misko misko@mathworks.com abhg!misko@lll-lcc.llnl.gov
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/18/89)
In article <444@inebriae.UUCP> I write: [ A whole lot of stuff ... ] I said I'd shut up, so I'll be brief. I was misinformed about how many defects there could be or how they were handled. I'll delete everything except the clarification. Thanks to ISC for straightening me out on this, it's important. >In article <36506@ism780c.isc.com> support (Signed Mike Alcorn) writes: [ al lot of stuff too ... ] >>and Adaptec 2322B-8 controller. ISC did request the use of the drive because >>it had too many defects to work on 2.0.2. The problem was related to Mr. > ^^^^^^^^ How many are "too many"? Bigger drives always have more > defects, is there a limit to the size of the bad track table? To > the number of alternate tracks available for assignment? If so, what > is it so that we don't buy a drive with more than that? Turns out that 2.0.2 maps sectors. Bill Miskovetz' drive has 56 sectors per track, so the 36 reported defects were a lot more sectors than just 36 tracks. I'm told that one of the differences in 2.2 is that it maps tracks. That means that you lose a track (not unusual in bigger systems), but you have so many on a large capacity drive it doesn't hurt as much as trying to bookkeep on a sector basis. I thought that 386/ix was doing that all along, I was mistaken. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {attctc,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill