.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
( Reduced to living off the trash? )
( ... my thanks to Tim ... )

Gunther wrote:

Jeebus H. Kreist! I've been away from this ng for
over a year, and your crap was one big reason I left.
Here it is a year later and you're STILL a prick!
Why can't you just STFU and stay home?

Why are you all worked up over crap?

Is this only crap, not libel?

============================
Mike Richter is a LIAR (dae)
============================

Easy Coaster Creator 4.0 was released with the following bug:

Major bugs fixed in 4.02 (in 3/00, 7 months after its release):

System Tests for Digital Audio Extraction. Copying audio tracks from
CD to hard disk or CD-R gave much slower results in version 4 than
version 3.x for some CD-ROM drives, so with some systems it was
impossible to copy audio tracks directly from CD to CD-R.

[ In plain language, the System Tests gives "0.9x" as the DAE speed of
most, if not all, CD drives. (Acraptec tacitly acknowledged that ALL
IDE CD drives were affected by the bug.) ]

The reason why Ezcd 4.0 was released with such a bug is this:

=======================
From: Adrian Miller (Acraptec)
Subject: Acraptec Gibberish 101 and === More LIES ===
Date: 4/7/00

The DAE issue did not show up until after shipping of 4.00.

During beta testing all the testers reported DAE speeds in 4.00
similar to what they got in 3.5c.
======================

The above slimily implied:
(1) the POS would not have been released had the bug been discovered
before the release; and

(2) the "0.9x" DAE bug would be fixed in no time.

Note 1: The bug was finally fixed seven (7) months later and
the fix was only *partial*.
Note 2: Incredulously, this bug *reappeared* in Ezcd 6!

The beta testers did not discover the bug despite having a "significant"
beta program:

======================
From: Mike Richter
Subject: EZ Creator 4. 0 - True it has MAJOR bugs ?
Date: 9/2/99

They had a significant beta program ...
=====================

Imagine having a "significant" beta program, yet cannot even find an
"impossible not to detect" bug. [See the end of the post why it's an
'impossible not to detect' bug.]

Mikey Richter's weasel excuses for not finding the bug a

======================
From: Mike Richter
Subject: ****ty Beta Testing at Roxio-Adaptec
Date: 4/6/02

What is the point of beta testing at all if
you do not use representative sample of burners in use.

Not all beta testers use Plextors or SCSI, but while I was testing for
them, many of us did. In general, beta test is for functionality rather
than diversity - that is, the company wants competence in determining
and reporting performance, not variety of hardware. Hardware testing
requires many drives, firmware versions, motherboards and so on. It is
generally done by the manufacturer (alpha level) because they have the
hardware.

======================
From: Mike Richter (cRoxio Shill)
Subject: ****ty Beta Testing at Roxio-Adaptec
Date: 4/7/02

... but beta testing is used to find hw
incompatibilities as well. It just strikes me as odd that a
significant problem with ide dae could get pass any
reasonably diligent testing program.

Beta testing finds whatever the testers turn up. Given the variety of
hardware on which CD recording depends, that means that compatibility
per se is examined at alpha or through public beta. AFAIK, neither
Adaptec in the past nor Roxio more recently has ever conducted a public
beta. With a manageable base of external testers, there's little hope of
turning up hardware incompatibilities so the publisher does whatever it
manages at the alpha level.
======================

What a weasel mumbo jumbo Mikey spins!

The fact is one beta tester, GMAN, was using a cd-rom that a user
reported getting the "0.9x" DAE:

======================
From: (GMAN)

...i have been using a Panasonic 24x scsi drive...
[ I had approx 8x DAE ]
======================
From: jerry r

EZ creator 4 tests show my [Panasonic] CDr508 [24x] scsi drive
at .9x for DAE.
======================

( Is it possible the same drive gets "0.9x" on one system while it gets
"8x" on another system? See: "GMAN is a LIAR" )

Regardless whether beta test is only for functionality and not for
hardware incompatibility, this bug is 'impossible' to miss:

=======================
From: Adrian Miller (Acraptec)
Subject: smh is wasting bandwidth again
Date: 4/14/00

...the program insists that [System] tests are run on drives
when it is first run...
=======================

System Tests has to be run when Ezcd is first used! That is, hardware
testing is forced.

Mikey Richter's weasel excuse that beta testing did not find the
"impossible not to detect" bug because beta testing is not for hardware
incompatibility is a LIE.

----------------------------
Mikey, you are a Lying Scum!
----------------------------