misko@abhg.UUCP (William Miskovetz) (11/12/89)
> adaptec!neese writes: /* Written 10:47 am Nov 10, 1989 by adaptex.UUCP!neese in comp.unix.i386 */ > I will soon have a system here, that I will be able to benchmark under > ISC 2.0.2 and SCO 2.3/3.2UNIX. I will test the ACB-2372C (RLL)/ACB-2322B > (10Mbit ESDI)/ACB-2322B-8 (15MBit ESDI)/AHA-154[02]A (SCSI). I plan to test > the controllers with like drives (in physical design i.e. same number of > heads/sectors per track) in like environments (i.e. same buffer cache size, > clean filesystems). /* End of text from abhg:comp.unix.i386 */ I have to wish you luck in getting a 2322B-8 working with ISC. 4 months ago I sent my ACB-2322B-8 controller and my Maxtor 8760E drive to ISC. They still have it. They have been unable to get me a system that works with the drive and controller. They claim that version 2.2 will support the drive/controller, but until I see a working version on my system I am skeptical. If this sounds a little cynical, it is. Being without a $4,000 drive for 4 months and having to roll back from a 760MB drive to a 60MB drive has made me a little sour. That and I have owned ISC versions 1.0.5, 1.0.6, and 2.0.2 and have never had ISC running on my system. That is well over a year of owning ISC without ever being able to use it. I do have to thank ISC support. At least they offered to try to get it running rather than just telling me I was out of luck, but this was after months of telling me "it's fixed in 2.0.2". Bill Miskovetz. {uunet!lll-winken, daver, pyramid}!abhg!misko misko@mathworks.com abhg!misko@lll-lcc.llnl.gov
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/13/89)
In article <319@abhg.UUCP> misko@abhg.UUCP (William Miskovetz) writes: > >> adaptec!neese writes: [ Adaptec testing goals ... ] > >I have to wish you luck in getting a 2322B-8 working with ISC. 4 months >ago I sent my ACB-2322B-8 controller and my Maxtor 8760E drive to ISC. Lemme be sure I have this straight... FOUR MONTHS??? I can certainly sympathize with ISC's predicament trying to support all things for all combinations and they should be grateful for your generous loan of cutting edge hardware, but FOUR MONTHS??? That's ungrateful, unprofessional, and borders (IMHO) on criminal! >They still have it. They have been unable to get me a system that works >with the drive and controller. They claim that version 2.2 will support Now I get it, after four months, since a fix isn't available they keep the equipment. I guess it's no good to you anyway since you can't have the fix. If they have a fix and know that it works, why can't you have it? How do you, they, or anyone else know it works? It seems to me that if you were generous enough to let them enhance their product with your equipment, it would be professional courtesy to let you have the fix, not to mention returning the equipment. Is there someone from support@ism780c.ISC.COM who can offer a rational explanation for this? Please post a follow up if so, I doubt that I'm alone in my curiosity. >a 60MB drive has made me a little sour. That and I have owned ISC versions >1.0.5, 1.0.6, and 2.0.2 and have never had ISC running on my system. That >is well over a year of owning ISC without ever being able to use it. I'll concede that 15MHz ESDI and a 760Mb drive aren't necessarily mainstream '386 ware, but it would seem that if they wanted to support the drive and controller combination it could be done with a phone call or so to Maxtor and Adaptec. Surely there's some incredibly complex technical problem here, or might they just be inept/rude? They must have had some confidence that they could solve the problem before agreeing to borrow the stuff. >I do have to thank ISC support. At least they offered to try to get it >running rather than just telling me I was out of luck, but this was after >months of telling me "it's fixed in 2.0.2". Thank them for WHAT, not charging for storage? For not sending you their telephone and electric bills? Sounds like you're not only out of luck, but also out of a drive and controller... >Bill Miskovetz. >{uunet!lll-winken, daver, pyramid}!abhg!misko >misko@mathworks.com >abhg!misko@lll-lcc.llnl.gov I hadn't intended to be so lengthy, but what Bill Miskovetz is pointing out here is symptomatic of a larger problem than just a busted device driver (if it was ever intended to work in the first place). There are the usual "fixed in the next release" canards, we're all used to that. There's also the fact that it wasn't fixed, at least in the three releases he bought. What disturbs me is that ISC, a Kodak company, seems to think that his equipment was donated equally "as-is" as their OS. They don't let him have the fix (if there is one) and don't return his stuff. I'm incredulous... Or I guess I would be if it wasn't true. This IMHO deserves an official ISC response. If they are conducting their business this way, their customers are entitled to an explanation. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {attctc,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) (11/13/89)
In article <1240@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: > >>I have to wish you luck in getting a 2322B-8 working with ISC. 4 months >>ago I sent my ACB-2322B-8 controller and my Maxtor 8760E drive to ISC. > >Lemme be sure I have this straight... FOUR MONTHS??? I can certainly >sympathize with ISC's predicament trying to support all things for all >combinations and they should be grateful for your generous loan of >cutting edge hardware, but FOUR MONTHS??? That's ungrateful, unprofessional, >and borders (IMHO) on criminal! I thought I'd never see the day when I'd be siding with Interactive but Bill Kenedy, don't you think that level of hostility is a bit premature? The first Bill did not indicate that he'd asked for his hardware back so I'd hardly call it criminal. Poor customer relations for sure, but hardly criminal. For all the flamage Interactive deserves (and that's a bunch), at least they ARE on the net and do at least try to respond sometimes. Ever try to get a really sticky problem solved with Microsoft? Or worse, IBM? Harsh, but positive and fair pressure does work. Witness the long overdue man pages and paper docs to come with the next release. (Which I SURE hope does not cost as much as the hardware its running on!) Slam 'em when they deserve it but let's be fair. Besides, that's just a little horror story compared to what is still unfolding in my shop. You may remember WAAAAY back in March, when Newbury Data announced a closeout on a wide variety of disk drives as they were pulling out of the American market. The largest drive available was the 4380, a 380 mb drive. Since Newbury private labeled drives for Maxtor and since the Maxtor 4380 had a good reputation, we decided to order some of these drives in SCSI format. We sent 'em a cashier's check for a couple of drives and they shipped COD! We should have taken that as a premonition. The drive got trashed in the return shipping and they did not insure it. No more 4380's so we had to pay a bit more and get the faster 4380S. Again we send 'em a check and again they shipped it COD! When we finally got the drive, it was packed in a cheap little foam space frame, suitable for nothing more sophisticated than a floppy. The drive had broken free of the mount and had rattled around in the box. The second thing that we noticed was that the defect map covered the whole side of the drive! This drive was trash going in! Newbury recommended that we try the drive because if it were broken, we had a 1 year warranty. We fired the drive up, formatted it (over 6 hours of bad sector lockout), and installed Unix. Fast drive. About a week later, it started growing bad sectors at a rate of about 5 a day. We called Newbury. They claimed to be all out of these drives but that we could ship it to Daisy Disk in Salisbury, Ma for warranty. We explained that our company was a startup and that we really needed the drive for our production machine. They promised to arrange 48 hour turnaround with Daisy. We Fed-Ex'd the drive to Daisy. They were supposed to ship a refurb from stock in return. THREE MONTHS LATER and after about 20 phone calls in which the salesman claimed to be shipping the same day, and after assistance from the Federal Trade Comission, they shipped a drive back. On my Fed-Ex account. The same drive. With the original tamper seals intact. And with the same PCB in place as evidenced by my hidden witness marks. Needless to say, the drive was still broken. And I had several hundred dollars worth of long distance phone bills. My attorney advised us to try to work with Newbury. Which we did. I've since made about 35 trans- Atlantic phone calls to the UK. Each time, they promised to ship me a new replacement drive that day. I've talked to Sales, Marketing, Repair, Customer Service, a couple of Directors and innumerable secretaries. All nice. All polite. All promised to ship a drive the same day. Some even gave me the name of the carrier. But none did a damn thing. Until last week. Finally, last Friday, almost 6 months to the day, I get a call from Atlanta Customs. They have a disk drive at the Atlanta Airport and there is duty due! The SOBs shipped the drive duty-due. I'll probably have to pay another round of shipping too. And I have little real hope of this one working either. I've built a file about an inch thick on this case. Daisy disk in particular deserves anything anybody can do to them. They played a classic game of "The three greatest lies". I was impressed with some of the excuses they came up with for not having shipped the drive. Newbury? Well, they're probably just illustrating again why the British Empire is spoken of in the past tense. As for us, I plan to turn the file over to the FTC and the state consumer protection office. I don't have the funds to sue them for the damage they've caused to the company but they deserve it. I'd suggest that anyone contemplating doing business with either Daisy or Newbury to carefully reconsider the options. I'd also suggest that anyone buying Maxtor disks to specify that they are not to ship Newbury private labeled drives. This network is probably the most powerful weapon we little people have against dishonest vendors. We must use the weapon carefully but when appropriate, let loose with both barrels. John PS: I'd like to hear from anybody else on the net that bought Newbury drives from that advertisement of March 15th crossposted to everywhere. I'd like to give the FTC and the CPO all the ammunition I can. -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/13/89)
In article <1240@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >In article <319@abhg.UUCP> misko@abhg.UUCP (William Miskovetz) writes: >> >>> adaptec!neese writes: >[ Adaptec testing goals ... ] >> >>I have to wish you luck in getting a 2322B-8 working with ISC. 4 months >>ago I sent my ACB-2322B-8 controller and my Maxtor 8760E drive to ISC. > >Lemme be sure I have this straight... FOUR MONTHS??? I can certainly >sympathize with ISC's predicament trying to support all things for all >combinations and they should be grateful for your generous loan of >cutting edge hardware, but FOUR MONTHS??? That's ungrateful, unprofessional, >and borders (IMHO) on criminal! Yep. I'd have to agree with that. Then again, after six months ISC still was bitching and moaning about how a WD1006-V/SR2 board w/120MB fixed disk was considered "broken", even though the interface to the system is standard WD1003-compatible, the controller spoofs the drive type (correctly), SCO runs with it trouble-free, and the >only< problem ISC had was BROKEN INSTALLATION ROUTINES -- that they either couldn't or wouldn't fix. Then 2.0.2 came and it suddenly worked. They still claimed the drive/controller was "broken", and not recommended, but by Gods, it did (and does) at least work properly now -- although they wouldn't officially admit it, OR admit that their install was broken in the first place! .... >>a 60MB drive has made me a little sour. That and I have owned ISC versions >>1.0.5, 1.0.6, and 2.0.2 and have never had ISC running on my system. That >>is well over a year of owning ISC without ever being able to use it. > >I'll concede that 15MHz ESDI and a 760Mb drive aren't necessarily mainstream >'386 ware, but it would seem that if they wanted to support the drive and >controller combination it could be done with a phone call or so to Maxtor >and Adaptec. Surely there's some incredibly complex technical problem here, >or might they just be inept/rude? They must have had some confidence that >they could solve the problem before agreeing to borrow the stuff. There's no big deal with 15Mhz ESDI, other than a higher number of sectors per track. That is the >only< difference the system sees, unless their driver is doing something terribly inept and foolish. The WD1007-SE2 boards, for example, support 15Mhz ESDI drives. And SCO works with them just fine and dandy, right out of the box. Boot "N1" and go. No problem. Now of course if while writing the drivers ISC was foolhardy and statically allocated a 36 sector track buffer I can understand the problem. I can also understand that it's a ONE LINE fix in the driver code, or better yet, don't do dumb things like that and allocate the memory out of system pool once you boot and you >know< what the configuration of the disk is. .... >I hadn't intended to be so lengthy, but what Bill Miskovetz is pointing out >here is symptomatic of a larger problem than just a busted device driver >(if it was ever intended to work in the first place). There are the usual >"fixed in the next release" canards, we're all used to that. There's also >the fact that it wasn't fixed, at least in the three releases he bought. Was it ever claimed to work? The RLL combination >was< to one customer of ours, and when it didn't they did the "your hardware is broken" nonsense -- despite hour-long discussions with the Hollis support office about how we had tested and retested the hardware, under DOS, Xenix, and with our own certification equipment & programs, and >nothing< was wrong with it. The hardware >wasn't< and >isn't< broken. That 2.0.2 suddenly installed problem-free (without so much as touching the hardware) is testament to that fact. >What disturbs me is that ISC, a Kodak company, seems to think that his >equipment was donated equally "as-is" as their OS. They don't let him have >the fix (if there is one) and don't return his stuff. I'm incredulous... >Or I guess I would be if it wasn't true. This IMHO deserves an official >ISC response. If they are conducting their business this way, their >customers are entitled to an explanation. They're entitled to a lot more than that, IMHO. Try a working package, and a written apology. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/13/89)
In article <542@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes: >In article <1240@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >> [ my ISC bashing ... ] >I thought I'd never see the day when I'd be siding with Interactive but Bill >Kenedy, don't you think that level of hostility is a bit premature? The >first Bill did not indicate that he'd asked for his hardware back so I'd >hardly call it criminal. Poor customer relations for sure, but hardly >criminal. > >For all the flamage Interactive deserves (and that's a bunch), at least >they ARE on the net and do at least try to respond sometimes. Ever >try to get a really sticky problem solved with Microsoft? Or worse, IBM? >Harsh, but positive and fair pressure does work. Witness the long overdue >man pages and paper docs to come with the next release. (Which I SURE >hope does not cost as much as the hardware its running on!) Slam 'em when >they deserve it but let's be fair. > >Besides, that's just a little horror story compared to what is still >unfolding in my shop. [ a lot of agony about Newbury, no sarcasm in "agony" ] >John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? >Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You >emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! No, I don't take back a word. I don't think that the level of hostility is premature at all. I agree that ISC's participation on the net is helpful and welcome, I think that I've been complimentary of them in the past, but this situation is unconscionable and (to repeat) borders IMHO on criminal. They agreed to take the guy's drive and controller. They reported that they had a fix, but there were sufficient kernel changes such that they would have to include it in the next release. They haven't returned his drive and controller, nor have they said he could have the fix. He has purchased three copies of 386/ix, none of them work with his equipment. He has loaned them the equipment and they haven't returned it. What's unfair about slamming them for that? He was promised that 386/ix would work with his equipment. When it didn't he was promised that it would be fixed in the next release. In three releases that's not true. He loaned them $4000 worth of working hardware to track it down, four months ago. They say that they tracked it down but have provided neither the fix nor have they returned the hardware. Am I unreasonable asking that they tell their customers their side? Any comparison with Microsoft or IBM isn't reasonable. When you buy from either firm, you're on your own and you should know it. Neither comoany has any pretense at technical support, their stuff is "as-is" just like the warranty states. Since they neither offer nor advertise technical support (when your products are `perfect' you don't need to) nobody expects it. ISC advertises "all you can eat" technical support, that's their term, not mine. When I hear about a case like Bill Miskovetz' I wonder what they suggest we eat. In email, since my follow up, Mr. Miskovetz says that he has followed up the situation roughly every week. He sent the equipment overnight air express, figuring it would be a quick fix. He *HAS* asked for the equipment to be returned, but he has gotten a lot of guff about people being at shows, on vacation, nah nah nooh nooh. The stuff was shipped (as reported by ISC Santa Monica) November 6th. It hasn't arrived, 400 miles away in seven days... Yes, they had the original manufacturers' cartons. Sorry John, I don't see where I'm being unreasonable asking ISC to comment. You say they are working hard, I agree. You say they are on the net and helpful, I agree. What's that got to do with Bill Miskovetz' situation? I discarded your painful report about the Newbury disks because it didn't have anything to do with Miskovetz' article or mine. That doesn't diminish the pain you've undergone or the risks that go with buying discontinued goods, but what's discontinued about ISC 386/ix 2.0.2? -- Bill Kennedy usenet {attctc,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) (11/14/89)
In article <1243@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) writes: >In article <542@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. De Armond) writes: > >>I thought I'd never see the day when I'd be siding with Interactive but Bill >>Kenedy, don't you think that level of hostility is a bit premature? The >>first Bill did not indicate that he'd asked for his hardware back so I'd >>hardly call it criminal. Poor customer relations for sure, but hardly >>criminal. [your additional details deleted] Ok Bill, with the added information, I'm now on your side. Interactive does have some explaining to do. Actually, I do have my own bag of ICS flames but I'm not ready to post yet. My main concern in the minor chastisement is that we don't give ISC an excuse to claim unfair harrasment. I think your case is adequately built given this second posting. I do want to make one small correction, though, so that we keep this in perspective. >Any comparison with Microsoft or IBM isn't reasonable. When you buy >from either firm, you're on your own and you should know it. Neither >comoany has any pretense at technical support, their stuff is "as-is" >just like the warranty states. Since they neither offer nor advertise >technical support (when your products are `perfect' you don't need to) >nobody expects it. ISC advertises "all you can eat" technical support, >that's their term, not mine. When I hear about a case like Bill Miskovetz' >I wonder what they suggest we eat. Both Microsoft and IBM DO claim to offer technical support and in fact market that "fact". Microsoft has both free AND pay (SDK) support lines. You get the same dweebs but that's a different issue. IBM is heavily pushing their "superior technical support" in their AIX pitches. Even at the current state of crappy service from Interactive, it is STILL better than the "leaders". I recall one incident in which I had a simple problem. The new MSC compiler 5.1 was locking my Novell network up. Many calls to Microsoft tech support, (I was a paying developer, remember), the only answer I got was "Can Novell and buy Microsoft networks". I posted a hefty flame to the net, and asked anybody who was disturbed with this support policy to call Billy boy himself at the number I supplied. At least THAT got their attention. I was contacted by a high level manager and my problem was fixed. (Turned out to be a well known bug in the Novell shell - easily fixed by getting a new revision shell). I wasted a LOT of time on that one. So by all means let's toast Interactive til they are golden brown for the major problems but let's also appreciate the fact that they ARE here and (I suspect) are trying. John > >In email, since my follow up, Mr. Miskovetz says that he has followed >up the situation roughly every week. He sent the equipment overnight >air express, figuring it would be a quick fix. He *HAS* asked for the >equipment to be returned, but he has gotten a lot of guff about people >being at shows, on vacation, nah nah nooh nooh. The stuff was shipped >(as reported by ISC Santa Monica) November 6th. It hasn't arrived, >400 miles away in seven days... Yes, they had the original manufacturers' >cartons. > >Sorry John, I don't see where I'm being unreasonable asking ISC to comment. >You say they are working hard, I agree. You say they are on the net and >helpful, I agree. What's that got to do with Bill Miskovetz' situation? >I discarded your painful report about the Newbury disks because it didn't >have anything to do with Miskovetz' article or mine. That doesn't diminish >the pain you've undergone or the risks that go with buying discontinued >goods, but what's discontinued about ISC 386/ix 2.0.2? >-- >Bill Kennedy usenet {attctc,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill > internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/14/89)
>>cutting edge hardware, but FOUR MONTHS??? That's ungrateful, unprofessional, >>and borders (IMHO) on criminal! > >Yep. I'd have to agree with that. > >Then again, after six months ISC still was bitching and moaning about >how a WD1006-V/SR2 board w/120MB fixed disk was considered "broken", even I would have to agree with you guys. ISC told me that the USR modems are junk and are not supported by 2.02. Hogwash - I wouldn't suggest ISC to anyone -
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/14/89)
When I post problems or questions about SCO - I usually get a reply via Email from someone at sco.com. When I was running Interactive - the support I received from Hollis where I purchased the product was very poor - and slow. Come to find out they only had 3 people in their technical support department - and one of them was brand new. That explains the answers (or lack of) that I received. A friend of mine bought my copy of ISC - and after several disk crashes - finally gave up. Brian said he could return the product and would call back with an RA number. Guess what? Brian never called back.
bill@inebriae.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) (11/14/89)
I'm moving this to email, John and I are substantially agreed and there's
no point in bashing eachother/ISC/IBM/Microsoft further. It's down to
opinions.
--
Bill Kennedy {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!billtanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (11/16/89)
Once upon a time, I got an advert from ISC: send in this card, we'll
send you a free one. If you like it we'd be happy to sell you a heap
more. Campaign name appeared to be "Yo, Brian!". Brian was the guy
selling beer at the baseball games, I think.
Well, I sent in the card. What did it bring? Two more of the cards!
Also a phone call ("do you all want one?" "sure"). And another card!
Well, after a while SCO came out with `386 native mode, and ISC came
out with another card (send us $99, we'll send you one). I think we
may have made the right choice.
Perhaps the people who were supposed to deal with the cards got moved
over to support?
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner