Re: M$ to STRIKE again...

[Michael Dodas <miked@utw.com>]

.James Giles wrote:
.> 
.> Catherine Rees Lay wrote:
.> 
.> [...]
.> 
.> > Don't be too hard on Delphi, btw - just because Borland are
prepared .to
.> > acknowledge their bugs doesn't mean they have any more than other
.> > companies/products. The existence of a well-defined bugs list is a
.plus,
.> > not a minus.
.> 
.> It used to be (in the good old days) that all computer vendors
.(software
.> or hardware) were very up-front about errors.  They would bend over
.> backwards trying to educate users about the present buglist and the
.> status of the respective fixes.  The problem in those days was
.> complacent users who couldn't be bothered to look through the known
.bugs
.> until they got bitten.
.> 
.> These days (especially after the Intel floating-point fiasco) vendors
.> seem to be shy about even admitting to having bugs.  I suspect it's
.> really due to a perceived changed among company marketing strategists
.of
.> the expertise of the user community.  In the old days, users were
only
.> the elite professional type and would not have stood for
stone-walling
.> from the vendors.  Now, most users are naive newcomers that might shy
.> away from any company with admitted bugs - and who can be bullied
into
.> thinking any problems encountered are their own fault.  (Note: I'm
not
.> saying that this is so.  I just think that's the opinion among the
.> vendors.)  So, most companies believe it's now in their interest to
.> conceal errors if possible.
.> 
.> --
.> J. Giles
.> Ricercar Software


I agree completely with you, James.  The bugs, errors and problems that
are distributed with many of the PC software products are totally
unacceptable.  The two major reasons I see this happening is (1) to get
that next release out, not matter what, because the competition has it
and (2) more time is spent making the GUI look nice (dancing ICONS,
etc.) at the expense of the internal processes.  If you feel like that
you, as the customer, are being used as a guinea pig by your software
provider because of all of the problems, you probably are.  A lot of
people accept this.  A lot of people also take it for face value that a
software product is good just because it has company XYZ's name on it.

I don't agree with Caterine when she stated that "just because Borland
is prepared to acknowledge their bugs doesn't mean they have any more
than other companies/products".  All software is not created equally and
all software does not have as many bugs as everyone else's.  I'm not
singling out Borland on this issue--just generalizing this problem as a
whole.

If software vendors distributed mainframe software with the problems
that much of the PC vendors have, they would go out of business.  The
mainframe environments have never tolerated software with problems like
that.  Yes, mainframe software can have some problems.  But never to the
extent of what I've seen on other platforms.  Large, commercial
environment cannot afford those problems and down-time.

There are good PC software products if you take the time to find them. 
The PC tools I use for software development have proven to be very
reliable. But, just like mainframe software, I scrutinize PC software
just as much.  And, I have never been shy telling a vendor (mainframe or
PC) what I think.  Too many people forget that its YOUR dime and THEY
want it.  I do not have the time to continuously fight the same old
problems over and over.  And I've seen the same problems over and over,
from release-to-release, pop up in software.  How much of this are you
willing to accept before it causes you problems with your projects and
how your company runs?  Is the hype from software vendors worth the
gamble and your time?

Mike Dodas