Newsgroups: comp.periphs.scsi
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bigsur!bcars53!mussar
From: mussar@bcars53.uucp (G. Mussar)
Subject: Re: Always IN-2000 SCSI host adapter (the real story)
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.162514.17437@bigsur.uucp>
Sender: news@bigsur.uucp
Reply-To: mussar@bnr.ca (G. Mussar)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
References: <1991Jun22.033501.17909@xstor.com> <1991Jun23.032656.3227@bigsur.uucp> <1991Jun23.105753.5484@bang.uucp>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 16:25:14 GMT


In article <1991Jun23.105753.5484@bang.uucp> iverson@xstor.com writes:
>Well, I don't hold their technical problems against them forever, just their
>sneaky tricks.  If they fix their technical problems that's great, but the
>only thing that would satisfy me on the other is an admission of guilt on
>the interrupt issue (even if it was confidential).

I would be interested in the real reason you had trouble with the floppy
just in case something starts acting up in my system. Speed and interacting
hardware problems are fairly tough to track down especially without lots
of fancy (expensive) equipment to help. I doubt that Always (or most other
companies) would leap out into the inferno and advertise technical problems
(even if they have been solved). And admitting guilt is usually only done
if the party was guilty to start off with. There is the possibility that
they are guilty but I don't believe the evidence presented (to date)
indicates that (IMHO), emotions aside.

>I really would like to hear your reasoning - is it all gut feel or do you
>have something concrete?  I've rejected numerous other scenarios (this one
>gets about a 75% feel, all the rest are at about 5 or 10%), but a different
>plausible explanation would certainly cause me to reevaluate my position.

Having been the one to track done the stack overflow problems in
"professional" software (in one case, drivers provided by Intel), I certainly
can identify with that particular type of problem. I've also tracked 
numerous other "interrupt" related problems caused by people who are
unclear on the concept of critical sections of code or with hardware
which is "flaky" wrt the speed of access (both too fast and too slow).
I am willing to believe these kinds of issues may have been the reason
for the original SW to have a "Chubb security lock" in the form of
disable/enable ints which managed to make it out in beta SW. Again IMHO.
I've even let a few things manage to get out into the field with some
debugging SW turned on (it does happen once in a while).

>>If you really want to go 10 paces, then draw, be my guest, but don't expect me
>>to continue in a flame fest with you.
>
>Actually, my words were aimed at provoking a "flame-fest", but was I hoping
>for something more civilized - sorta like a rationality test (you passed,
>mostly :->).  

I guess that makes me just a cocktail weenie instead of a foot-long. Thanks.

FWIW, the price of the Adpatec (plus SW) came out to twice the cost for
the IN-2000 (way up here in Canada). This ends up being a significant 
factor for some people (as well as the customer support problem for us
little folks who have lousy local reps). If U.S. people are starting from
scratch and have no objection to the price (rare but true sometimes) I
have recommended Adaptec products. I have heard some rumors that Adaptec
might be trying to get out of the "board" business and get more into the
chip business with "Adaptec register compatible" boards showing up on the
market. That could be a problem if true (lets hope not).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mussar  |Internet:  mussar@bnr.ca                |  Phone: (613) 763-4937
BNR Ltd.     |                                        |  FAX:   (613) 763-2626