🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec14.163801.27783@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.150447.4552@fcom.cc.utah.edu> dks8475@u.cc.utah.edu
(David Kenneth Slack/Music) writes:
>>
>>I have been running Stacker 2.0, and I've had no problems at all with it. 
>>When I ran the earlier version I would run into those kind of problems,
>>but 2.0 is (IMHO) 100% more stable than 1.x.  I'm sure 3.0 wouldn't be
>>LESS stable.  <smile>
>>
>>Good luck...
>
>Actually, I have been running 1.x because I have other things to spend my
>money on than the upgrades, and have neevr had *any* problems with it
>whatsoeevr.  On the other hand, I keep seeing the horror stories about
>2.0 write-protecting the volumes.

Here we go again with horror stories about write-protected disks. The write
protection is a _fail-safe Feature_ of Stacker, _not_ an error.  When Stacker
determines that an error has occured, it write protects your hard disk so that
the integrity of the data remains stable while you run the utilities to fix the
problem. Then, after re-booting the machine, all is well again. Read the manual
people  ;)

>   I don't think Stacker itself is unstable...either the 1.x or 2.0 or 3.0
>versions, in so much as the comation of Stacker + some operating systems +
>some drivers + some motherboards is unstable.  In other words, it no more
>unstable than any other program.
>

Agree!

         __________________________________________________________________
        / Michael J. Mangieri                 Internet: mmangieri@vitro.com
__     /  Vitro Corporation                      Voice:      (301) 231-3016
  \   /   MX-SP 4-2311                             FAX:      (301) 231-1233
   \ /    14000 Georgia Ave.              
    *     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972    

         "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                                                       - A. Einstein