Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Isaac_K_Rabinovitch
From: Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Who's Fault is Fastback
Message-ID: <1907@cup.portal.com>
Date: 11 Dec 87 04:01:49 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 79
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.1472


After my recent comments on Fastback's incompatability with certain
hardware configurations, I got an interesting letter from a certain
cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu, disputing my moral assumptions.  His return
address doesn't work for me, and besides it occurs to me that the issues
we're arguing are of general interest:  what are a software publisher's
responsibilities?  And what does the word "standard" mean?  If you think
this sort of argument is out of place in this newsgroup, by all means
flame me.


To: cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu
Subject: fastback
Lines: 55
Date: Wed Dec  9 14:03:31 1987
Message-Id: <8712091403.1.29668@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
X-Possible-Reply-Path: Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com
X-Possible-Reply-Path: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Isaac_K_Rabinovitch
 
1>
->In article <1802@cup.portal.com> you write:
->[...]
->>
->>That's unnecessarily intemperate.  The fact is, there's little in the way
->>of hardware standards for PCs, so given the large number of RLL drives out
->>there, the onus is on Fastback's publishers to either make the product
->>work safely on RLL drives or make it clear that it shouldn't be used with
->>them.
->>
->[...]
->If software publisher's spent their time testing every possible combination
->of controller/drive/clone/DOS version/resident software/etc... they would
->never bring a product to market.  It is the onus of the *user* of
->somewhat non-standard equipment to assure that software designed for
->*other* (standard) hardware will work reliably on their machine.
 
You're not a very careful reader.  Look again!  Where do I say Fifth Generation
should test *all* combinations?  I simply point out that RLL is a *very*
commonly used technology, sufficient to justify documenting Fastback's
incompatibility with it.  You also seem to be assuming some nonexistant
disk technology standard for PCs (and simply ignoring my statement that
there isn't).
 
BTW, Fifth Generation *did* check out DOS version and resident software
compatibilities:  read the documentation.
 
->>I myself bought Fastback after hearing it praised to the skies by nearly
->>every user I talked to.  It turns out to be incompatible with my floppy
->>controller!  If there's any blame to be laid here, it's in the fact that
->>the PC marketplace still resemble a hobby shop.
->>
->[...]
->And why is your floppy controller incompatible?  I would guess it is because
->it is non-standard.  Again, it is impossible to check for this type of
->thing.  I hope that you let the company know about your situation so
->they can program a fix.
My floppy/hard controller is the one that comes with all Heath/Zenith AT clones.
Zenith has a very good compatibility reputation, and Fastback is the
only software I've had trouble with.  The weirdness seems to happen when
Fastback tries to format the floppies (which it can supposedly do in
one third the time of DOS).  Judging from what I've been told (there was
an interesting discussion on the net about a month ago), this special 
formatting procedure can trip over hardware differences that are indetectable
by any other procedure.
 
Fifth Generation seems to be aware of this problem:  the new version of
FB allows you to use disks formatted with DOS.  (Unfortunately the upgrade
fee is hopeless.)
 
-> Does the box specifically list your floppy controller
->as being compatible?  If not, you don't have a gripe.
The only hardware requirement mentioned on the box is "128K memory and one
floppy drive".  The box does not mention or exclude *any* specific brand
of compatibile; there's a clear implication that it works on them all.

Isaac Rabinovitch
Disclaimer:  Just because I think you're wrong, doesn't
             mean I don't think you're a fun person!
:-)