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