Jump to content

Important update on Panasonic CW-8121 (Apple)


Recommended Posts

This is probably another stalling tactic by Dantz. They don't say whether or not upgrading the firmware to AA21 is going to solve all the Error 206 problems people are having with the 8121 drives. Eventually Dantz is going to tell us that our machines and drives are too old and we should upgrade to a newer machine. I suggest you do your backup manually. Just copy everything to make a base backup, then use "Find" to select all the files that are modified today (you have that option from "Add criteria"), and simply drag them to CD-Rs or RWs. Regardless what Retrospect tells you, your drives are not dirty, and your disks are not invalid. It works for me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Panasonic CW-8121 (Apple) drive

 

 

 

Due to potential dataloss issues with this drive, the minimum supported drive firmware revision is AA21. This firmware revision (or later) is on drives included with the currently shipping PowerBook G4 computers new as of 11/2002. Firmware revision AA21 addresses a serious dataloss defect where used discs will have an "erased" status and drastically

 

improved performance when used with Retrospect. Dantz is working closely with Apple in regards to availability of the AA21 updater for earlier PowerBook G4 computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple has not, at this time, released firmware updates for this device. You may want to check directly with Apple for updates.

 

 

 

The drive was tested, and qualified with, the later version of firmware. It was determined that earlier versions of firmware performed unreliably with Retrospect, and a result, drives with the older firmware are no longer compatible. We have requested that Apple make a firmware update available to customers, and it is ultimately up to them to provide the update to customers. Firmware updates are hardware updates that resolves issues with devices.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but you are the one who said in an earlier message, "Dantz is working closely with Apple in regards to availability of the AA21 updater for earlier PowerBook G4 computers." In your latest message my take-away is: "We asked 'em once. Now buzz off and go ask Apple about it." So how closely is Dantz working with Apple?

 

 

 

thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of response is becoming more typical from Dantz. I think they have pulled a plug on this case. As an owner of an early PBG4 with CW-8121 drive, I suggest that you do your backup manually (I do). It's a waste of time to ask for any more assistance from these people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

I think they have pulled a plug on this case.


 

 

 

We are absolutley in contact with Apple on this. It's important to us, and it's important to you as a consumer. They have not provided us with a firmware update to date, and it would be helpful for consumers to be vocal with Apple with these requests, in addition to our own requests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just checked back here and find my 2 prior posts on this thread have been removed. Interesting...

 

 

 

> We are absolutley in contact with Apple on this. It's important to us, ......

 

> They have not provided us with a firmware update to date, and it would be

 

> helpful for consumers to be vocal with Apple with these requests...

 

 

 

-- well, how exactly would you suggest consumers go about this? Apple has insulated itself pretty well from any direct contact with their customers - I'm not going to pay to call their support line & be told to "reinstall your system software" & "contact Dantz"... Should I demand warrantee replacement? (and how should I respond when someone points out that this drive has no problems with other software, e.g., Toast?)

 

 

 

Maybe this is primarily an Apple problem - I have some sympathy for Dantz on that front, but -

 

I upgraded to v.5 (forced to, because you refused to update the v.4 driver to support the CW-8121) last August. I have heard that the later firmware drives weren't shipping until October. When Dantz was testing Retro 5 (when? about May or so?), how could they not use what was shipping at that time? Of course I don't really know about all this timeline, or care too much - it is all speculation.

 

 

 

The fact remains, I was sold an upgrade on the promise it would work with a baseline Apple product, it doesn't, months have gone by and this hasn't been fixed. Instead it seems like there is only finger-pointing going on.

 

 

 

As I said before (in post apparently deleted), I am very disappointed.

 

 

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

Just checked back here and find my 2 prior posts on this thread have been removed. Interesting...


 

 

 

Clicking on your user name then "Show All Users Posts" brings up three posts from you on this thread. Were there more? We don't delete posts unless they go against the rules of conduct - using foul language for example. All three of your posts on this particular topic are still listed in this forum. I can assure you that your posts have not been deleted.

 

 

 

In reply to:

I upgraded to v.5 (forced to, because you refused to update the v.4 driver to support the CW-8121)


 

 

 

At this time, our engineering efforts need to focus on the latest release of Retrospect, and a frequent and consistent RDU release schedule does not allow us to support previous versions of Retrospect in the RDU.

 

 

 

In reply to:

When Dantz was testing Retro 5 (when? about May or so?), how could they not use what was shipping at that time?


The drive we were provided with had a newer version of firmware that passed qualification. Unfortunately, some shipping drives came with older versions of firmware that is unreliable in backup and restore operations.

 

 

 

In reply to:

Instead it seems like there is only finger-pointing going on.


I'm sorry you feel this way - our goal is not to point fingers at Apple. The reality is that we don't have the firmware. The drive won't work reliably without it. Yes, it's frustrating. We are working with Apple, as previously mentioned. When there is an update it will be posted to this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I can assure you that your posts have not been deleted.

 

 

 

-- yes, Amy, today I found my other posts on this thread in the "Desktop, Workgroup and Server for Macintosh" forum - looks like they didn't make it into this forum when the thread moved here.

 

 

 

I appreciate your responding to most of my other points as well - hey, at least you noticed, so maybe we can hold out some hope that Dantz will eventually fix this.

 

 

 

But you didn't respond to my observation that Retrospect seems to be the only software that has problems with this drive. (yes, I am still frustrated...)

 

 

 

 

 

> They have not provided us with a firmware update to date, and it would be

 

> helpful for consumers to be vocal with Apple with these requests...

 

 

 

-- can Dantz suggest a specific way for us to do this? A contact person/email address, perhaps? Some way to publicize the issue outside this forum? (I have posted to Apple's "Discussion" list - only response was "me too!" from another Dantz customer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In reply to:

But you didn't respond to my observation that Retrospect seems to be the only software that has problems with this drive. (yes, I am still frustrated...)


Retrospect uses Packet Writing - other programs use Track writing. Different methods of access.

 

 

 

In reply to:

can Dantz suggest a specific way for us to do this? A contact person/email address, perhaps?


 

 

 

I would go through their standard technical support - the discussion groups and calling their support line directly and make the request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

 

 

I am also the owner of an "OLD" PowerBook G4 with the AA11 firmware version. I recently bought retrospect: in October at this time I was told it would work with my PowerBook G4. According to this thread it was a pure lie since the proper version of the firmware AA21 was not even on the market.

 

 

 

What are the commitment date from Apple to Retrospect ? Is there any business commitment from Apple to satisfy there number one third party provider of bcakup software ?

 

 

 

If not, what is the refund policy ?

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Jean Casteres

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re:

 

 

 

> I would go through their standard technical support - the discussion groups

 

> and calling their support line directly and make the request.

 

 

 

-- Yes, I had started a thread on the Apple Discussions board:

 

 

 

http://discussions.info.apple.com/WebX?14@137.9JMGaWtZgpZ.2@.3bbd72f4

 

 

 

 

 

Reads like a few plaintive cries in the dark, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I understand (somewhat) the Dantz position that they got blindsided on this. But asking customers to try to persuade Apple to help out Dantz on this issue seems quite ridiculous.

 

 

 

So I was thinking, how else could Dantz respond to their customers, as a sort of gesture of goodwill or sympathy. (After all, the company accepted our $ for purchases/upgrades promising compatibility with our Apple-standard-issue PowerBooks) Seems like some sort of constructive response would at least be far better PR/Customer Relations than "Go tell it to Apple."

 

 

 

Well, a very simple, cheap thing that would help me would be the offer of a single Retrospect client license - then at least I could back up my PowerBook from Retro 5 installed on another machine. And then I could use this software for the purpose it was intended (& purchased for).

 

 

 

Thoughts?...

 

 

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me naïve, but if Dantz was able to TEST Retrospect with the updated firmware, why isn't Dantz able to offer the firmware for download? They must have received license to use the firmware--is it conceivable that Apple released the firmware for testing, but wouldn't allow it to be used with products on which it had been tested? (Unless there's a huge black market out there for pirated drive firmware and they're afraid of lost profits....) (That was a joke.)

 

 

 

I guess if this were an issue of the firmware not yet existing, I'd be a lot less frustrated with Dantz right now. But I too feel as though I've been strung along. I've spent so much money, time, and mental energy upgrading my Retrospect, OS, and hardware configurations that the thought of having to make ANY concession (like backing up to another device, or [good grief!] backing up manually in spite of the hundreds of dollars of backup software on my machine) makes me just plain mad.

 

 

 

Dantz folk, I understand that some things are out of your control. But your publicity, your marketing, and the information your salespeople provide to potential buyers (and upgraders) is ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY under your control. It seems to me that the voices on this thread would be a lot cooler in tone if your company had simply had the integrity to warn purchasers of known incompatibilities BEFORE accepting our money (and then giving us 30 days before charging us $70 more "per incident" to get the software to fulfill its marketed purpose). Many other companies waited to release OS X products until they had been fully tested and worked for the most common hardware configurations. I don't know what to think other than that Dantz was in such a hurry for a quick buck that customer satisfaction took a back seat to immediate sales.

 

 

 

I'll keep talking to Apple about the new firmware, but wanted to add my voice to the current of dissatisfaction. I used to recommend Dantz products when folks asked me about backup options. I'm not sure I can any longer.

 

 

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quote:


Call me naïve, but if Dantz was able to TEST Retrospect with the updated firmware, why isn't Dantz able to offer the firmware for download? They must have received license to use the firmware--is it conceivable that Apple released the firmware for testing, but wouldn't allow it to be used with products on which it had been tested? (Unless there's a huge black market out there for rive firmware and they're afraid of lost profits....) (That was a joke.)

 

I guess if this were an issue of the firmware not yet existing, I'd be a lot less frustrated with Dantz right now. But I too feel as though I've been strung along. I've spent so much money, time, and mental energy upgrading my Retrospect, OS, and hardware configurations that the thought of having to make ANY concession (like backing up to another device, or [good grief!] backing up manually in spite of the hundreds of dollars of backup software on my machine) makes me just plain mad.

 

Dantz folk, I understand that some things are out of your control. But your publicity, your marketing, and the information your salespeople provide to potential buyers (and upgraders) is ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY under your control. It seems to me that the voices on this thread would be a lot cooler in tone if your company had simply had the integrity to warn purchasers of known incompatibilities BEFORE accepting our money (and then giving us 30 days before charging us $70 more "per incident" to get the software to fulfill its marketed purpose). Many other companies waited to release OS X products until they had been fully tested and worked for the most common hardware configurations. I don't know what to think other than that Dantz was in such a hurry for a quick buck that customer satisfaction took a back seat to immediate sales.

 

I'll keep talking to Apple about the new firmware, but wanted to add my voice to the current of dissatisfaction. I used to recommend Dantz products when folks me about backup options. I'm not sure I can any longer.

 

David

 


 

Dantz does not own firmware created by a drive vendor, we only own the Retrospect Backup Software. Without ownership of the firmware, we can not legally distribute it. You will find no firmware updates on Dantz's website. We did not update our old drive's firmware. When we did test the newer firmware, it was in a drive shipped by Apple, just the same way our customer get the drive and newer firmware.

 

As far as our support policy, we have recently changed it allowing for more options to everyone:

 

Support options

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following the discussion on this forum, as well as the discussion on Apple's web site. I really would like to know why it isn't Dantz's responsibility to supply software that works for the Titanium G4 powerbook. Note that the Panasonic combodrive has been used for several months, since early 2002, and it is only the November 2002 version of the powerbook (as far as I know) that came with the AA21 firmware.

 

I think Dantz needs to explain why the software can't be made to work with the earlier firmware. It is not sufficient to say that it works for AA21, and then put the onus on Apple to fix a software vendor's problem.

 

I am very disappointed in Dantz's position on this - every response I read from Dantz basically states that the fact that their software doesn't work is not their problem.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is a reminder of our public statement on this issue:

 

"Due to potential dataloss issues with this drive, the minimum supported drive firmware revision is AA21. This firmware revision (or later) is on drives included with the currently shipping PowerBook G4 computers new as of 11/2002. Firmware revision AA21 addresses a serious dataloss defect where used discs will have an "erased" status and drastically improved performance when used with Retrospect. Dantz is working closely with Apple in regards to availability of the AA21 updater for earlier PowerBook G4 computers"

 

The number one concern at Dantz is the safety of your data. We can not comfortably recommend using a device that could result in loss of your data. Dantz is not preventing you from risking data with the older firmware, we are just making a very strong recommendation that you only use the device with AA21 firmware. It is impossible for Dantz to fix a dataloss defect in the hardware. The best we can do is identify the problem and report it to the customer as well as Apple and Panasonic. It is up to the hardware vendor to make the older firmware updatable to the newest version. Dantz does not make this firmware and can not distribute something we don't make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the "public statement" from Dantz, and quite frankly it is not adequate. I am not aware of any other software vendor's issues with the earlier versions of the 8121 firmware. I could be incorrect in this, since I am not a power user in terms of burning CDs, but suffice it to say I have had no problem burning CDs with Apple's CD Burner or Roxio's toast. This dataloss issue appears to be specific to Retrospect. Why is it therefore a hardware issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the programs you noted, Retrospect is the only utility writing the data using "packet method" as specified in the orange book standard. This uses different commands and uses the drive differently from all of the other methods you mentioned.

 

Retrospect uses an industry-standard method - packet writing, also known as the MMC-3 command set - to write data to CD-R/RW media. This method was chosen because it allows for file-level writes at variable speeds without wasting 10+ MB of media space per session written, and buffer underruns aren't an issue. Retrospect does not employ any special commands, but it does require that a device be able to execute standard packet writing commands correctly.

 

Sadly, CD-RW drives today are commodity products where price/performance ratios are king. While many of the leading optical drive mechanism manufacturers, such as Lite-on, Plextor, Sony, and Yamaha, are able to produce drives that function properly with packet writing, other manufacturers, such as Samsung and Sanyo, produce drives with predictably unreliable or incomplete support for packet writing. If the drive can't support the commands, Retrospect cannot support the drive.

 

Other CD-RW drives, including some of those used in the Macintosh product line, fall somewhere in between these two extremes. For example, some users report slow Retrospect performance with one of his CD-RW drives. This is not due to packet writing being inherently slower than session-at-once or disc-at-once writing. More likely, his drive does not properly flush its cache after each write operation, so Retrospect must flush the cache manually, impacting overall performance. When the drive firmware bugs we find don't result in data loss, we do what we can to work around them and provide support for the drive.

 

Providing support for new CD-RW drives can take time. When a manufacturer sends us their drive directly, and they're willing to work with us to fix any firmware problems that we uncover, we're often able to support the drive in a matter of weeks. On the other hand, if we must go out and buy a drive from a retail store (Dantz spends tens of thousands of dollars annually purchasing drives to qualify) and/or the manufacturer does not have a streamlined method for dealing with firmware bugs, it can take much longer to complete the qualification process, if at all.

 

This issue of poor support for packet writing support is frustrating, and it ultimately hurts the consumer. Many drive manufacturers simply don't consider backing up an important enough reason to fix the bugs that prevent us from supporting their drives, try as we might to convince them otherwise. Dantz is working on a new method of writing to optical drives, one that we hope will allow Retrospect to be more flexible in the devices it supports, while maintaining our high reliability standards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your detailed response. I now understand better the position that Dantz finds itself in.

You have been more responsive to queries than has Apple.

 

With these details we (the end users) can at least make more cogent requests of Apple, pointing out why specifically a firmware upgrade is required.

 

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just to belabor the obvious, re:

 

 

> This kind of response is becoming more typical from Dantz. I think they have pulled a plug on this case.

 

and

 

> It's a waste of time to ask for any more assistance from these people.

 

 

-- "rgp100" called it correctly last December.

 

In retrospect (hmmm...), it seems even more insulting for Dantz to have told its customers "go ask Apple" to fix the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a simple question for Mayoff or Amy C.:

 

If Dantz knows that firmware revisions less than AA21 can (and probably will) cause data loss, why don't you let the user know this at run time, if the user chooses to create a backup set on CD-R/CD-RW? After all - the firmware revision is available to Apple System Profiler (Bus -> CD-RW/DVD-ROM -> Product Identification -> "CD-RW CW-8121", -> Device Revision -> "AA17" (mine), Vendor Identification -> "MATSHITA"). So Retrospect checks the Vendor Identification and Product Identification strings, and if they match "MATSHITA" and "CD-RW CW-8121", then it should check Device Revision and if it doesn't say "21" in the returned string (or higher), then put up a popup error of some sort explaining the situation, and allow the user to Cancel/Abort or go ahead (at their risk).

 

I have a PowerBook G4 800 DVI-I with a firmware rev. AA17 CW-8121 drive, and last year (before November 2nd, and more importantly, before I bought my first FireWire drive to put backups onto!) I made a complete backup onto 8 CD-R discs. When I tried to use them to restore something, Retrospect Express told me the disks were "Empty". 8 coasters. Sure would've been nice to have known this a priori so that I didn't waste 8 CD-R discs! After that, I wouldn't trust CD-Rs and bought a FireWire drive instead. But that might not be an option for other people.

 

Off to burn that AX21 Region-Free firmware ... grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...