home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Wrap
(Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tsrE3-0007qfC; Sat, 2 Mar 96 06:19 MST Received: from extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (cirwin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU [129.78.64.1]) by extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09302; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 23:19:49 +1000 Received: (cirwin@localhost) by extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (8.6.12/8.6.6) id XAA24784; Sat, 2 Mar 1996 23:19:48 +1000 Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 23:19:47 +1000 (EST) From: Colin Irwin <cirwin@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Subject: Re: **SyQuest EZ and Executor** To: "Clifford T. Matthews" <ctm@ardi.com> cc: executor@ardi.com In-Reply-To: <ufn35z3h32.fsf@ftp.ardi.com> Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9603022346.A22272-0100000@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com Precedence: bulk On 2 Mar 1996, Clifford T. Matthews wrote: > >>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck Bell <cbell@sol.wf.net> writes: > In article <4h88q4$jq8@sol.wf.net> cbell@sol.wf.net (Chuck Bell) writes: > > > Chuck> Does anyone know if the SyQuest EZ drive, SCSI model, > Chuck> hooked to the parallel port of a PC with an Adaptec > Chuck> SCSI-to-parallel adapter can be read by and written to with > Chuck> Executor? > > Chuck> TIA, > > Chuck> Chuck > > I believe that some people have been able to get it to work and others > have not. I hope everyone who has tried will report their results, > since we're trying hard to pin down the reason why some people can use > Mac formatted media without problems while others get all sorts of > weird results. > > One thing we know is that our current sound implementation interferes > with the use of some peripherals on some systems. We're in the > process of rewriting the lowest level portion of our sound driver so > that this will not happen. > > We're not exactly flush with cash over here, but we may buy a zip > drive and an EZ SCSI drive for testing purposes. Of course if it > works here and doesn't work on other people's systems it will still be > hard for us to figure out what the problems are. > > NOTE: The Linux and NEXTSTEP versions of Executor do not have all > these problems. Once we've done them, the native Windows '95/Windows > NT and OS/2 ports won't have this trouble either. Programming DOS is > painful. > > --Cliff > ctm@ardi.com > > I all I'd like to say to this is that DOS is most probably the most painful OS to program in, and possible if you program around these deficiences you may get there on all systems. But I highly doubt it :-). Pity Microsoft didn't reengineer MS-DOS as the hard ware improved. Nevyn.