chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach; Lord of the OtherRealms) (10/08/86)
> THIS is how a vendor should take care of its customers. THIS is how things > should be done. Ann Arbor Softwares should be given Sainthood or something. > > I hope they're properly chastised. There is no excuses left, either for CP > or for slipshod support and gouging customers. > > chuq (Way to go, Microsoft. Nothing like a company that is responsive to > its customers needs. Three cheers for Ann Arbor Softworks!) A person who works with Microsoft dropped me a line on this note, and looking back at it I realize that I was unfair to Microsoft. Not that they don't have problems, but that their problems are symptomatic of problems in the industry in general, and I dind't make that clear. Other companies (Notably Boston Software, makers of MacPublisher II, to name one name) have the same HFS compatibility and nasty copy protection problems -- I've been crashing MPII on my 512K enhanced about twice a day for weeks now because of what seems to be HFS and new ROM compability problems) but I only mentioned Microsoft, making them look worse then they are. To help clear things up, here is the letter I sent back to the person in explanation: chuq ----- > What are your specific complaints regarding Microsoft? And why > specifically Microsoft Fortran? > I do know that the HFS support for certain other > products has taken so long because of the complexity of the > implementation; hopefully when you see it you will agree. Actually, I have two complaints and a mea culpa. I'll get to the complaints first. o Copy Protection. Excuse me, but I'm in my Bash the Damned Copy Protectors mode. Microsoft is just one of the companies that gets caught by this, but a major one -- especially since they HAVE pulled CP off of their PC product line but NOT the Mac. Copy Protection of a commercial product makes the implicit assumption that I'm GOING to be a crook, that you EXPECT me to be a crook, and that I'm guilty by assumption. Microsoft Word, while easy to forge the CP, doesn't allow me to install on a hard disk. Microsoft File, while it does allow installation on a hard disk, has limited installation capabilities, which means if my disk crashes (or more likely, I rebuild it for some reason) I can suddenly be without use of my software. In general, I find it irritating that a company will spend money trying to lock up a disk, raising its price (or lowering their margin, whichever you prefer) and forcing me to go out and buy another program specifically designed to defeat the protection so I can use it as I want to use it (as opposed to how The Company feels it is Safe for me to use). The above, of course, applies to a good percentage of the software industry. Games that reboot when you exit, making your hard disk useless. Programs that require key disks, a practice I find both amusing (I immediately make a copy of the key disk, and carry THAT around, since I won't jeapordize my masters -- HOW, might I ask, does this solve anything?) and irritating, because I don't want to constantly be fumbling for floppies to make the programs on my hard disk run. Programs that, when you rebuild your hard disk, won't run because they need to be re-installed from floppy because the copy protection notices that it's been copied from backup. Feh to CP. Microsoft is one case, but they've set their own precedent in the PC area and not (yet) followed through. o Microsoft Fortran. An HFS compatible version of Microsoft Fortran was turned in by Absoft (authors of the program) in, I believe, July. It has been sent to people who have called up Microsoft and SCREAMED to high heaven. It has not been announced, it has not been released, it has not been admitted to in public and the Fortran shipped to the public is useless on the Mac Plus, the 512K extended, and the new ROM's. HFS is well over a year old, the ROM's have been public and available for 10 months, and Microsoft has had the code to support them for three months. I know of half a dozen people who are either limping along on old ROM's because it isn't worth it to them to fight with Microsoft for the new code (yet) or have simply given up using Fortran because of this. THIS is responsive? As reference, Think Technology released LSC 6 months ago. The new release is on the way, and in 6 months, one programmer was able to add almost every feature, wish, hope and prayer that people have sent him since buying the program. As well as HFS support in the toolbox, significant compiling speedup, and a partridge in a pear tree. It can be done. Microsoft is not unresponsive. I've worked with the people in MSOFT a couple of times on CompuServe when I've had problems, and they've helped me out. But Microsoft could be doing a lot more -- so could Apple, so could Locus, so could most software companies. Mea Culpa Time. Despite the above, I think I was a little tough on Microsoft. Many of my bitches were really general bitches at the industry in general, and some of my comments were tossed at Microsoft but were really more appropriate to others. My CP and HFS bitches really ought to have been aimed at Boston Publishing and MacPublisher II, since I've been having continuing problems with their wonderful CP and HFS (lack of it) bugs causing bombs on my system. I just bought Archon, and while I LIKE the game, I rarely use it because when you exit, it reboots the system. On a hard disk based system, this is death -- if I have to make special arrangements to use the stupid game, I usually won't bother. I was tired, and I tossed off an article aimed at one company that should have been aimed at a lot of companies. Microsoft isn't an angel, but they aren't the nasties I think I wrote them up to be. There are others out there that are MUCH worse. I don't think that excuses Microsoft from improving things, getting releases out faster, removing CP and the like, but the same needs to be said for most for most of the industry. Thanks for bringing it up. I hadn't realized I'd been a bit offbase on my original posting -- I'll be clearing that up. chuq