Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun
Subject: Re: Emulex MD21 vs. Adaptec ACB4000
Keywords: Hardware
Message-ID: <30059@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 5 May 89 07:36:35 GMT
References: <8904050313.AA09355@uunet.UU.NET>
Sender: usenet@rice.edu
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 26
Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu
Original-Date: 24 Apr 89 12:41:25 GMT
X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 266, message 2 of 17

>Beware:  DEC is notorious for slightly modifying third-party hardware used
>in its systems.  That may be a Micropolis 1324.9997 or 1325.002 rather
>than a 1325.  (I have no specific information on the RD53, but I urge
>caution.)
>
>	Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology

Just to add a little fairness these changes are not just arbitrary.  I
remember fighting with DEC field service to write a contract on a printer
which was "the same damn vendor and model number" as their re-packaged
version on a large Vax installation.

Finally a field service person dropped by to chat and pointed out some of
the differences inside. Among them were shock hazard guards which DEC had
insisted on to protect their service people, and in fact I realized they
were right, the original design I had did have a serious shock hazard
inside. I paid to have it upgraded, and a board replaced which they said
blew out too frequently in its original incarnation and we wrote the
contract. I don't think any of that was unreasonable even tho I was
"certain" they had just slapped their name on the outside, they hadn't,
they had insisted on some significant improvements.

	-Barry Shein, Software Tool & Die

There's nothing more terrifying to hardware vendors than
satisfied customers.