Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!jonm From: jonm@killer.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,alt.flame Subject: Re: No problem AT clones (Flame on Compaq) Message-ID: <2363@killer.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Dec-87 10:32:21 EST Article-I.D.: killer.2363 Posted: Mon Dec 7 10:32:21 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Dec-87 15:32:29 EST References: <2001@briar.Philips.Com> <3151@bnrmtv.UUCP> <636@qetzal.UUCP> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 134 Keywords: naive' expectations doom frustation, exasperation Xref: hoptoad comp.sys.ibm.pc:10690 alt.flame:886 Summary: wait just a minute before you send in the clones > rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) writes: > ... > Foolish me. > ... "Foolish you" indeed, is right! I'm sorry that Mr. White feels that Compaq is as he says "manipulatively tweaking" their hardware. As far am I'm concerned, nothing could be farther from the truth. Compaq is dedicated to compatiblity and customer satisfaction. Admittedly the customer service and support provided by the retail channels varies greatly, from superior to unacceptable, but if Mr. White had taken the time to contact Compaq directly he might have been able to avoid some of his misadventures. I should say, for everyone's information, that the views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, *Compaq Computer Corporation*. As a relatively new Compaq employee in a systems engineering group I can, I believe fairly unbiasedly, attest to the the high standards of "industry standard" compatibility which are applied to Compaq products. There is a lot of pride in the success of Compaq in competition with IBM and PC clone-makers in product performance and innovation. Mr. White seems to have had several distinct problems in transfering large data files from a Compaq system to some other system. I quote from his article: 1) [Mr. White] "...tried for a week to read the Compaq's 1.2 meg floppies..." 2) "...the Compaq had a CDC type 17 drive in it and nonstandard connectors" 3) "the disk drive makes some god-awful high pitched noises" I don't understand the nature of the problem Mr. White had reading the 1.2 meg floppies. If he was attempting to read 360K format floppies written on a 1.2 meg drive on the Compaq with a 360K drive on the destination system, then he may well have had difficulty, but that problem is not realted to Compaq's reliability or compatibility. The 360K floppy disk has 48 tpi, the 1.2 meg floppy disk has 96 tpi. When the 1.2 meg drive writes a 360K formatted disk, the information is written to the correct track location, but the track is only half as wide. The resulting disk may or may not be readable on a 360K drive, depending on the alignment of the reading and writing drives. Both IBM and Compaq have documented this "limitation", but as a matter of fact, I routinely transfer data on diskettes between the 1.2 meg floppy drive on a Compaq 286 Deskpro and generic 360K floppy drives with few problems. If on the other hand he was trying to read 1.2 meg images on the destination machine, there is a distinct possiblity that the problem was the result of alignment differences between the two 1.2 meg drives. Mr. White does not specify the Compaq system configuration and mentions the destination system only obliquely as "the trusty Microport IMS clone". It takes two to tango, though, and the problem might well have been with the destination system and not with the Compaq. If either system's drive were badly out of alignment or if the two system's drives were out of adjustment in opposite directions, then certainly read errors could make diskette data interchange between the systems difficult. As for the incompatibilty of the fixed disk drive connections, the most obvious point is that fixed disks are not intended to be data exchange devices,-- particularly when separated from their controllors and software device driver routines. These points and the stories of how may miles Mr. White drove through the ice and snow because of his own naivete' not withstanding, there are many possible reasons for the differences among the many fixed disk drives which Compaq supports. Fixed disk drives used in portable computers must not only be small enough to fit into the portable case, but must also be able to survive the bumps and shocks received in transport. Since Mr. White did not describe the Compaq system, I don't know if the unit with which he had a problem was intended for use in a portable system. The 40 or 50 fixed disk drive types currently supported by Compaq have a variety of operating characteristics and applications. The most recent additions to the list include high performance/high capacity fixed disk drives using a 1:1 interleave factor. While the drive with which Mr. White had difficulty was not one of these new drives, I doubt that anyone would expect to be able to simply plug one of these drives into a "foriegn" system (controllor/ROM/driver) and have the data be accessible. The same holds true for many of the earlier Compaq fixed disk drives. With regards to the "high pitched noises", it sounds (pun intended) as though the hard disk drive may be failing. Fixed disk drives have a projected operating life expectancy and eventually *will* fail. The exact nature of Mr. White's complaint is unclear. Does he feel that the fixed disk drive failed because of poor quality control or is his complaint mainly with the poor sevice which the retail dealer provided? If the Compaq system were still in warranty and the dealer could not correct the problem then a call to Compaq customer support would obtain information on other service channels for repair under warranty. As with all consumer product service problems, if the dealer cannot resolve the difficulty, the customer should esclate the complaint to the dealer's "home office", the distributor, and then the manufacturer. Mr. White's flamage is colorful, but short on fuel to keep the fires really burning brightly. If these were the worst complaints concerning compatibility of a non-IBM PC, then all the Korean and ROC manufacturers would "wish that they had it so bad..." Mr. White's oath to never purchase a Compaq product seems a little silly when compared to the trade journals' and general market's view of Compaq,-- particularly the new 386 systems. The decision of which PC to buy should be made on a variety of criteria including price, performance, compatibility, support and in some cases name brand. Yes, there are still some places where "nobody ever lost his/her job for buying an IBM product." Compaq also has a name and reputation which make it an attractive source for PC's. As for prices, Compaq's suggested list prices are comparable with their competitor, IBM. In general, Compaq's distribution channels and marketing strategies take their products out of competition with PC-clone importers and mail order computer system integrators. It may well be that a low cost PC-clone provides the best price/performance/reliability match for a particular situation. The quality of customer support, especially for non-technical users, and dealer and manufacturer reputations may, however, make a larger initial investment payoff in the long run. JonM