nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (02/22/90)
I was quite nonplussed by some email I received from Walter Bright
on his BBS in Washington State in which he said that my criticism
of Zortech in a "public" and "insulting" manner was "not appreciated".
And that I should restrict my "public comments to polite requests
for help".
After spending a ton of money on the original compiler and another ton
of money in toll calls to Arlington and long-distance calls to Washington
State, I've got to be polite, too?! To begin with, I'm not a very polite
person. And, anyway, I didn't think I was *that* insulting. Everything
I said was true. In the past I've talked to the technical support staffs
of XYQuest, 5th Generation Systems (Fastback), Softlogic, Lotus, Quarter-
deck, Leading Edge, Western Digital, Everex, and Microsoft. I found
all of them to be more knowledgable about their products than Zortech
was about theirs. It is not as though I called people names, made
personal comments about them or used obscene language. I've seen far
worse things said about companies and products in the pages of various
PC magazines which are much more widely read than Usenet.
And WHY should I restrict my "public comments to polite requests for
help"? If I were in the market for a C++ compiler *I* would certainly
want to know what other people's experiences were with the major
supplier of such products. The newsgroups on which I've posted my
comments were all either related to C or to PC products, which is where
interested people are likely to be.
Keep in mind that I still think it's a good compiler. It has never failed
to properly compile any C code (or the few fragments of C++ code which
I've tried); and the resulting code seems reasonably compact and fast.
The two versions of QuickC that I own are *disasters* (see, now I'm
gonna get email from some Microsoft consultant) and I compiled, so
to speak, a long list of cases where that compiler would either choke on
perfectly legal C code or generate buggy results. The Zortech product has been
very well behaved. Most of my complaints about it from a technical view-
point are related to features it doesn't support such as a "huge"
memory model or 256 colors in 640X480 VGA. For most people these
would be minor or philosophical issues.
---PeterBob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (02/23/90)
In an article of <22 Feb 90 15:36:00 GMT>, (Peter Nelson) writes: > I was quite nonplussed by some email I received from Walter Bright > on his BBS in Washington State in which he said that my criticism > of Zortech in a "public" and "insulting" manner was "not appreciated". Well, I know Walter and he doesn't seem like a masochist to me, so I can't imagine his "appreciating" flames. In any case, I also noticed on either his BBS or the BIX Zortech conference that he said you'd been offered a full refund. Since this has been aired so publicly, I'm curious whether you intend to accept the offer - inquiring minds want to know!
gsarff@meph.UUCP (Gary Sarff) (02/24/90)
In article <48cc3c8b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > > > I was quite nonplussed by some email I received from Walter Bright > on his BBS in Washington State in which he said that my criticism > of Zortech in a "public" and "insulting" manner was "not appreciated". > And that I should restrict my "public comments to polite requests > for help". > > After spending a ton of money on the original compiler and another ton > of money in toll calls to Arlington and long-distance calls to Washington > State, I've got to be polite, too?! To begin with, I'm not a very polite > person. And, anyway, I didn't think I was *that* insulting. Everything > I said was true. In the past I've talked to the technical support staffs > of XYQuest, 5th Generation Systems (Fastback), Softlogic, Lotus, Quarter- > .... [deleted] > > ---Peter It sounds like this person has a problem, (maybe the whole company has a problem.) I have been very glad for your posting, I gave it to a person here at work that had been looking for a compiler for a pc so he could see what dealing with Zortech might be like. Of course this point is irrelevant to the actual quality of their compiler, and the fact that the pc user wanting C++ really doesn't have much choice _but_ Zortech. But I think things like this should be discussed in a public forum, that is how competition works, and if another company sees this and decides that they will do better, then Zortech had also better improve or go under, their choice. With some companies, the spread of public opinions like this is the only leverage the poor customer has to make the company do anything. And if someone can't stand the light of public scrutiny they should go hide under a rock. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I _don't_ live for the Leap! ..uplherc!wicat!sarek!gsarff
jb@altair.uucp (John Birchfield) (02/24/90)
In article <00020@meph.UUCP> gsarff@meph.UUCP (Gary Sarff) writes: >In article <48cc3c8b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >> >> >> >> I was quite nonplussed by some email I received from Walter Bright >> on his BBS in Washington State in which he said that my criticism >> of Zortech in a "public" and "insulting" manner was "not appreciated". >> And that I should restrict my "public comments to polite requests >> for help". >> >> After spending a ton of money on the original compiler and another ton >> of money in toll calls to Arlington and long-distance calls to Washington >> State, I've got to be polite, too?! To begin with, I'm not a very polite >> person. And, anyway, I didn't think I was *that* insulting. Everything >> I said was true. In the past I've talked to the technical support staffs >> of XYQuest, 5th Generation Systems (Fastback), Softlogic, Lotus, Quarter- >> .... [deleted] >> >> ---Peter > >It sounds like this person has a problem, (maybe the whole company has a >problem.) I have been very glad for your posting, I gave it to a person here >at work that had been looking for a compiler for a pc so he could see what >dealing with Zortech might be like. Of course this point is irrelevant to >the actual quality of their compiler, and the fact that the pc user wanting >C++ really doesn't have much choice _but_ Zortech. But I think things like >this should be discussed in a public forum, that is how competition works, >and if another company sees this and decides that they will do better, >then Zortech had also better improve or go under, their choice. With some >companies, the spread of public opinions like this is the only leverage >the poor customer has to make the company do anything. And if someone can't >stand the light of public scrutiny they should go hide under a rock. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I _don't_ live for the Leap! > ..uplherc!wicat!sarek!gsarff As a Zortech (formerly Datalight) customer I think the above interchange could use a little input from another bias. I first bought the Datalight compiler because it could handle interrupt code from C (Microsoft and Borland had it later - (actually I think the capability was in Wizard C, Borlands ancestor also, but I couldn't afford the price, I got Datalight for between 100 and 150 $)). Each time the compiler was upgraded, I could upgrade for a relatively nominal sum (compared to Microsoft or Borland). In the process of following the upgrade path I have ended up with a C++ compiler. I do not use Zortech C in a production environment because the company I work for uses Microsoft and Turbo. They use Turbo because they need the 386 capabilities of the Turbo Debugger. The code I work on was written in Microsoft so I use Microsoft. I do use Zortech C at home and in a programming support capability. I like it because I can generate .COM files, and because of its compile speed and because I "like the feel of it". All three products (Borland, Microsoft, and Zortech) have their idiosyncracies. I think all three are good solid products and choosing between them is somewhat personal (unless of course you already have 180,000 lines of code already written and tested with compiler 'x'). I have never called the Zortech hot line to get an answer to technical questions. I have called Microsoft on my nickel and not been satisfied. I have called Zortech regarding upgrades and shipping questions. I have been assisted in a courteous manner each time I called. All I can say is it has worked for me so far. I have submitted several bugs to Walter directly on the net via his data-io address. I like that better than writing a letter and posting it. I currently have one outstanding which I submitted in December. I checked on it a few weeks ago and was told it's in the queue. Try doing that with Microsoft or Borland (probably possible through a third party on compuserve which I don't subscribe to). I can also understand Mr. Bright's (refered to as 'this person' by Mr. Sarff) inclination to respond to Mr. Nelson, however, Mr. Nelson does have a point. He was not happy with his treatment at the hands of Zortech's technical staff. Zortech can do two things about this problem. They can make their technical support as accessable as Microsoft, or they can make it better. The fact that 90% of Zortech's exposure on the net the last few weeks has been 'RE Zortech Problems' should be a good indicator. I will continue to maintain my Zortech compiler for personal use (and professionally where applicable) for the following reasons. 1. The product continues to improve. 2. Zortech acts as a force to prod Microsoft and Borland to continue to improve their own products. 3. When I find problems, I can report them directly to Mr. Bright without going through the various administration levels of Zortech. 4. I like using the compiler. It's fast and reliable. +---------------------- | John Birchfield | jb@altair.csustan.edu +----------------------
Bob.Stout@p6.f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Stout) (02/26/90)
In an article of <23 Feb 90 22:05:24 GMT>, (Gary Sarff) writes: >> I was quite nonplussed by some email I received from Walter Bright >> on his BBS in Washington State in which he said that my criticism >> of Zortech in a "public" and "insulting" manner was "not appreciated". >> > >It sounds like this person has a problem, (maybe the whole company has a >problem.) The problem is largely that, of a half-dozen flames by this person, there was only one *real* problem which was due to his use of a non-standard video display adapter. Of the remainder, one problem (ZTC's non-support of the huge memory model) represented a valid difference of opinion between the compiler's author and the remainder were simply that the poster was obviously too busy griping and whining to take the trouble to read the manual (or perhaps too dim to comprehend it)! Zortech produces an excellent ANSI C and C++ 2.00 compiler system. What this individual obviously wanted was neither, but some non- existant bastardized native-code compiler hybrid of MSC 5.1 and Cfront with all the non-standard language extensions he was used to. Well, life's a bitch sometimes... These being the facts, for the life of me I can't imagine why Walter didn't "appreciate" the seemingly endless barrage of verbal diarrhea.
cs551djc@iitmax.IIT.EDU (Daniel Ciarlette) (03/02/90)
I also am a satisfied customer of Zortech. I am happy with their products. I think what Walter Bright was upset about was with the flame by the person who took the time to post complaints to the net and didn't take time to read the manual. The v1.07 manual stunk. The Zortech C++ v2.0 manuals are good. They're easy to read and understand. What happens when people see a multi- week thread on "re: Zortech problems" is they tend to forget it's just as good a product as others, it's just getting a little more attention because it's a thread not because it's terrible. I have not heard one compiler upgrade that went smooth for ANY company not just Zortech. Walter Bright reads and replies to people here. That's more service then I get from Borland and Microsoft. When Borland comes out with a C++ compiler I will upgrade because I like multiple compilers around. It helps me find my bugs by running the code through both. C++ isn't as easy to implement as a lot of people think. Also, since everyone using Zortech C++ (almost) is learning C++ they can't tell the Zortech bugs from C++ 2.0 weirdness from their own bugs. Just look at the Cfront bug listings. Since AT&T's Cfront has bugs why don't we just say that it's terrible, flame about it for a while and move to some other language? I've gotten as good or better from Zortech as I have from other compiler companies. Walter Bright wrote a fine compiler and I use it a lot. Some things could be better and I am sure they will be better. Dan Ciarlette
ccsis@bath.ac.uk (Icarus Sparry) (03/06/90)
Summary: Bad Experience from Zortech Ltd (England)
Urgent order took long time to arrive, was wrong when it did arrive,
and it then took 2.5 months to get my money back.
While not directly related to Zortech Inc, I thought I would put in my
two pence worth about my experiences with Zortech Ltd. I had Zortech
C++ 1.06, and was using it for a project, which, as usual, was late. I
had spent a lot of time trying to get the Flash Graphics library
routines to work on a Paradise Based VGA card. At the end of last
November, I called the technical support line, but they were unable to
help, but promised they would take it up with Walter, and that I
should call back in a few days. I called back a couple of days later,
and they still had no fix, although by that time I did, having disassembled
large amounts of the code.
(Aside, fg_flush(), which is documented to ensure that the
(Flash Graphics and the screen agree, is coded as return atoi("-314");
I sent a bug report off to Walter at his data-io address on Fri 1st, and
on Monday he sent a one line reply, suggesting I upgrade to 2.0
On the Tuesday morning, I phoned Zortech Ltd, and ordered a copy of
the 'Developers Pack'. They told me they could give me a 15%
educational discount if I sent in a Fax on University headed
notepaper. I explained that it was urgent, and they said that they
could send it out that day. I sent the Fax at 2:15pm, although they
said that it was recieved at 5:30pm.
I hoped to get it on the Thursday, but was sure that I would get it
for the weekend. However, it had still not arrived by Monday
afternoon, so I phoned, and was told that it had been sent the
previous Friday (4 days after the 'Urgent' order).
A package arrived on the Wednesday (8 days after the order), but it
contained the standard C++, no debugger, no library sources, no
example classes etc.
I rang on the Thursday, and I was told to send the package back, and
then they would replace it. I pointed out that I had wanted it
urgently for a week ago, and I wanted them to do better than that. The
person at the far end agreed that the invoice showed that I had
ordered the developers pack, but said they couldn't send it to me as I
"might be trying something on"!
I demanded to speak to the manager, and he said that they would put
the rest of the package in the post for me. I told him that I wanted
it to be sent by one of the services which promise delivery within
24hours, as it was now about a week before Xmas. He refused, on the
grounds of cost, so I cancelled the order, and asked for my money
back, and for them to collect the package as it was faulty. He agreed,
and put the phone down on me.
A COURIER PICKED IT UP THAT AFTERNOON!
They invoiced my credit card on 6 Dec, and after several mail messages
to Walter, and a letter to the credit card company, I got the refund
on 23 Feb.
On the basis of this experience, I would strongly advise anyone against
having any dealings with Zortech Ltd. A pity, as I am quite happy with
the product apart from the bugs.pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (03/06/90)
In article <1990Mar5.170809.5120@bath.ac.uk> ccsis@bath.ac.uk (Icarus Sparry) writes:
Summary: Bad Experience from Zortech Ltd (England)
Urgent order took long time to arrive, was wrong when it did arrive,
As you should know, there is no implied or express warranty, etc...; software
publishers are very keen on having their contracts respected literally. I
doubt that Zortech Ltd. ever made any promises to you as to the delivery
dates, or the performance or even the composition of the product.
In any case it strikes me as unwise to depend for a time critical project on
last minute arrangements with a supplier of products that are excplicitly
disclaimed against anything, and about a language that is still evolving at
a breakneck pace. You take your chances...
and it then took 2.5 months to get my money back.
I am impressed that you got it back at all. This is quite uncommon in this
industry.
While I sympathize with your plight, it is based on unreasonable
expectations; hey, after all the very language you are using is labeled as
'experimental' and subject to major evolutionary change...
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk