Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: "Paul Andrews" <ac297@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:53:08 GMT
I think most people would consider "Looks like an expensive mailing ...
kinda dumb to send it out
too late. " as a tad harsh, allied to a rather sarcastic and condescending
tone across the post (my interpretation). I'm sure that Chuck is too much of
a gentleman and too experienced in PR circles to be drawn out by your
request.
Paul
"CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
news:davafr01nle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Could you please isolate in my original post, the line or lines which
strike you
> as "harsh comments", and then explain why you would think so? I'm sure
after you
> read it and mull it over for a few minutes, you'll see that it was as
positive
> as you might hope from a dissatisfied customer... even advertised the
extension
> to your very tempting upgrade offer.
>
> "Chuck Baker" <chuck_baker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:42D13672.1080802@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | CWCunningham wrote:
> |
> > 50% of the upgrades I've gotten from Newtek, *should not be installed*
> > according
> > to Newtek.
> || Your original comment did not suggest a specific range of releases.
> | Thank you for clarifying your intent.
> |
> It was merely a statement of fact directed at someone else, but since you
> question it, I'll gladly defend that statement.
>
> First, instead of 50%, it should read 66.66% since 7.5 was not an upgrade,
but a
> $1500 event.
> B as you know was pulled.
> C was still not what I will call my money's worth.
> And D, though still available on the website, is broken in a way that
makes it
> useless to myself and many others. If you search through this newsgroup,
or
> google "LW 7.5 D morph mixer problems - HELP", you will find a request to
> confirm a bug in 7.5d, and your support department's "workaround", to wit,
"...
> they said flat out, 'do not run 7.5d'"
>
>
> | Yes, we withdrew one update in
> | that series. If technical support is recommending against any other
> | updates in that series or in any wider selected range of update
> | versions, then by all means I'd like to know about it, and I'd like to
> | know why.
> |
> And there you have it.
>
> | If you personally would recommend against any updates in that
> | series, or any other updates for that matter, then again, I am
> | interested in finding out why you feel those particular updates should
> | be avoided. If you'd prefer to discuss this in email, that would be
> | fine with me.
> |
> I think we should keep this very public. Newtek's attitude towards
dissatisfied
> customers, and the quality of LW releases is of public interest. I would
have
> appreciated this thread before I plonked down my hard earned cash, and I
intend
> to pay very close attention before I plonk down any more.
>
> | This is certainly information that should get through to
> | management and the development team.
> |
> I couldn't agree more, but now look at it from my perspective. The fact
that
> 7.5d is unusable in the eyes of your support department is a matter of
public
> record in this newsgroup, and yet here you are, in the same newsgroup,
focusing
> on what ... harshness? If your company is unaware of what your support
> department is telling customers, is that our responsibility? Who could
possibly
> turn this around? (My money's on you, and I hope I'm pushing you in that
> direction).
>
> Some time back, you and I had a discussion along these lines
> YOU: "... do you think we should pull programmers off of new work to deal
with
> bug reports?"
> ME: "No ... but let's not be too hasty"
>
> Well today, I'm changing my tune, *Absolutely* you should pull programmers
from
> new content to deal with bugs, over the course of a year you would see
unhappy
> customers, and your bug backlog dry up. I guarantee it. During my decades
in
> programming, my policy has been to encourage bug reports to come to me
directly
> and immediately, and I've taken pride in turning them within the hour. 1
hour
> doesn't even dent my ability to turn out new content, and my customers
have
> never been unhappy for more than an hour. It works miracles and you should
try
> it. ... if your developers have their trash put right on their desk until
they
> get it right ... they will get used to the customer friendly notion of
getting
> it right before it leaves, and doing it even better should it ever return.
>
> If you have programmers who find releasable code a burden on their time,
the
> last thing you should do is give them new work ... do it well or don't
bother
> valuable customers with it.
>
> | > Would you like to talk 8.3?
> |
> | If you are encountering problems with 8.3 then indeed you should report
> | those problems. Whether you chose to do so here, or via our support
> | services, if you are having issues we'd like to help get them addressed.
> |
> I'm not buying the 8.x releases, though the $250 offer did merit a "take
it or
> leave it" coin toss. Your own forums paint the picture vividly enough for
my
> tastes. I can't add to what you could easily learn from your own forums,
but I
> will add that an associate of Newtek's (who shall remain nameless)
suggested
> that I upgrade, but "don't install 8.3". I didn't do either. It would be
> interesting to have a recent copy just so I could see if long standing
flaws are
> still extant, I'm certainly not going to pay for the privelege.
>
> | > As for the free support being worth every penny, would you like to
swap war
> | > stories?
> |
> | Again, if you have issues with our support services, you have a choice
> | of either making mysterious innuendos or specific comments here, as you
> | wish, or you can always email me specifics and I'll direct your reports
> | to the management responsible for our support services.
> |
> Mysterious Innuendos !!! Have you forgotten our discussions on this very
subject
> sometime back in this very newsgroup? You insisted that my 5 month old
suppoprt
> request was probably not recieved and that I should resubmit? I did so,
cc'ing
> you. I recieved a response from, *not* my resubmission, but my 5 month old
> request. I saw to it you were cc'd the entire sequence of mailings that
ensued,
> did I recieve anything you would call helpful? I gave them an explicit
error
> message, but that was not enough to submit to a programmer!!! (Give me
your code
> and 5 minutes and I'll show you the code that generated the error).
>
> But hey ... if you are really willing to help ... I've got an issue
outstanding
> with your support department that I'm still hoping will be resolved. It's
25
> months old, will you help me?
>
> As you can see, I'm not a satisfied customer, which is sad, because I'm
easily
> satisfied. I merely expect 7.5 to work as documented, that's what I paid
for and
> that's all I ask. I understand that bugs are inevitable, but I also know
from
> experience that they are easily dealt with. It's up to you.
>
> --
> CWC
> ============================
> It's not that nice guys finish last,
> They have a whole different notion
> where the finish line is.
> ============================
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: CWCunningham
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- References:
- Special upgrade treatment
- From: CWCunningham
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: Paul Andrews
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: CWCunningham
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: Chuck Baker
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: CWCunningham
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: Chuck Baker
- Re: Special upgrade treatment
- From: CWCunningham
- Special upgrade treatment
- Prev by Date: Another Dopetrack bug test
- Next by Date: Re: Special upgrade treatment
- Previous by thread: Re: Special upgrade treatment
- Next by thread: Re: Special upgrade treatment
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
