cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/21/88)
In light of the recent problems some people (well, one person) has had with the Microsoft C V5.1 SETUP program, I decided to take no chances and write protect every disk in the V5.1 distribution before installing it. But why am I doing it? Microsoft is a big company -- I'm sure they can afford disk duplicators that write on write protected disks. (Look at how IBM distributes software). Or they can afford to put people to work putting write protect tabs on the disks. It takes all of about five seconds to apply a write protect tab to a disk, and even if Microsoft paid unskilled laborers $10/hour to do this, it would cost less than 20 cents to write protect the V5.1 distribution. Clayton E. Cramer
Tom_TA2_Allebrandi@cup.portal.com (05/22/88)
In general, I have noticed that IBM is the exception not the rule when it comes to distributing write protected media. Nothing for the PC that I have ppurchased over the last couple of years has been write protected. I always follow these rules: 1) Write protect all media. 2) If not copy protected, make diskcopys and place the originals in our fire safe. 3) proceed with installation from the backup copies. I find that vendors often include similar instructions in their installation guide. That's procedure, now opinion. Yes, I am annoyed that software manuafacturers do not distribute write protected media. My # 1 above protects against accidental writing while making the diskcopys! I do not though want the non writable disks like IBM uses - a standard disk with a write protect tab installed is fine for me. Then, when I get the perennial update, it will be easier to reuse the old floppies. (Yes I know I could cut a notch but they don't let me have sharp things to play with. :-) For our product, we will be using standard disk with write protect tabs in place. And, I won the argument about having an installation program that writes on the master media - we won't have one. ta2 Opinions are like <name your favorite part of anotomy>, everyone has one or two. Except for some people I know who have three.
tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) (05/23/88)
In article <175@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: ... about MS not using write protected disks or applying write protect tabs to their program disks. Then, Tom_TA2_Allebrandi@cup.portal.com followed-up. >In general, I have noticed that IBM is the exception not the rule when it >comes to distributing write protected media. Nothing for the PC that I have >ppurchased over the last couple of years has been write protected. >I always follow these rules: >1) Write protect all media. >2) If not copy protected, make diskcopys and place the originals >in our fire safe. >3) proceed with installation from the backup copies. >I find that vendors often include similar instructions in their installation >guide. >That's procedure, now opinion. Yes, I am annoyed that software manuafacturers >do not distribute write protected media. My # 1 above protects against >accidental writing while making the diskcopys! I do not though want the non >writable disks like IBM uses - a standard disk with a write protect tab >installed is fine for me. Then, when I get the perennial update, it will be >easier to reuse the old floppies. (Yes I know I could cut a notch but they >don't let me have sharp things to play with. :-) >For our product, we will be using standard disk with write protect tabs >in place. And, I won the argument about having an installation program >that writes on the master media - we won't have one. >ta2 >Opinions are like <name your favorite part of anotomy>, everyone has >one or two. Except for some people I know who have three. First, let me get the mundane squared away. Disclaimer: The following thoughts, opinions, and miscellaneous ravings are my own and do not in anyway represent the official or unofficial thoughts, opinions, and miscellanous ravings of my employer. No flames are intended nor implied. I manage the software production process for my employer, a software developer for the healthcare industry. Part of my job is to qualify and coordinate the activities of software duplicators, in particular, diskette duplicators. These duplicators are highly automated but still must use manual labor for things like inserting disks into sleeves. By adding more labor-specific tasks, you not only increase the cost of the product but you are likely to increase the time it takes to get that product into the end-user's hands. In both cases, this is likely to have an adverse effect on your client base. The cost of diskettes is by far the largest expense incurred when duplicating software. The argument can be given that, hey, that's part of the cost of the software when the end-user hands over his wallet. That may or may not be true depending on whether or not the developer has included those costs in the retail price of the software. Regardless, someone has to put the first buck down and in this case it's the developer. When I purchase media for duplication I'm concerned with both quality and price. If a vendor quotes a price of $.60 for 5.25" non-write-protected floppies in quantity versus $.85 for write protected floppies of the same brand and quality, I think my purchasing decision is a bit obvious. Now you may argue about customer satisfaction and so on but lets look at some numbers. Ex. 5,000 5.25" (DSDD) disks @ $.60 (non-write-protected): $3,000.00 5,000 5.25" (DSDD) disks @ $.85 (write-protected): $4,250.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Difference of: $1,250.00 I don't believe I could convince any of my managers or those who have the authority to approve my requests that this kind of customer satisfaction is worth $1,250. However, I can easily convince them that if they don't use write-protected media, they pare down the use of labor-specific tasks at our duplicators, and provide our customers with sets of disk tabs, that not only will everyone save money but we can deliver the product on time. I believe the two or three minutes the client may take to write protect their software is more than made up by them having the product in the first place at a fair price and on time. Cheers! -- Ed. Net : {uunet,ihnp4,noao,yale}!hsi!tankus Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 Bell : (203) 562-2101
jack@csccat.UUCP (Jack Hudler) (05/24/88)
In article <175@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
+
+ Or they can afford to put people to work putting
+write protect tabs on the disks. It takes all of about five seconds to apply
+a write protect tab to a disk, and even if Microsoft paid unskilled
+laborers $10/hour to do this, it would cost less than 20 cents to
+write protect the V5.1 distribution.
+Clayton E. Cramer
Kinda of expensive considering that the disk cost ~20 cents or less,and
looking at my pricing sheet the disk cost .55 cents more to leave off
the write protect slot because everybody makes disks that way (with slot)
and to leave off the write protect slot causes them (disk mfgr) to
make a special run.
--
See above (214)661-8960jxh@cup.portal.com (05/25/88)
In article <978@hsi.UUCP>, tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) writes: >When I purchase media for duplication I'm concerned with both quality and >price. If a vendor quotes a price of $.60 for 5.25" non-write-protected >floppies in quantity versus $.85 for write protected floppies of the same >brand and quality, I think my purchasing decision is a bit obvious. Now >you may argue about customer satisfaction and so on but lets look at some >numbers. >Ex. 5,000 5.25" (DSDD) disks @ $.60 (non-write-protected): $3,000.00 > 5,000 5.25" (DSDD) disks @ $.85 (write-protected): $4,250.00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Difference of: $1,250.00 >I don't believe I could convince any of my managers or those who have the >authority to approve my requests that this kind of customer satisfaction ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >is worth $1,250. However, I can easily convince them that if they don't ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ [emphasis mine -jxh] >use write-protected media, they pare down the use of labor-specific tasks >at our duplicators, and provide our customers with sets of disk tabs, that >not only will everyone save money but we can deliver the product on time. You, sir, are on the slippery slope of justifying poor quality on the basis of aggregate cost savings, ignoring that cost relative to the price of the product. When your company makes anything in sufficient volume, even the smallest cost saving can seemingly be justified on the basis of how much money the company would save (in aggregate); this temptation often proves too great, and quality, little by little, is eroded. But where does this stop? How about using $0.59 disks instead of $0.60 disks? $0.58? $0.57? Where do you draw the line? How much value is placed on the customers' time: to put on the write-protect tab; to growl at your organization for not doing such a simple (not free, just simple) thing when they clearly got plenty of money from the customer to cover the cost; to re-order the product because of a stupid mistake that caused the disks to be overwritten? How much does it cost your company to respond to those who make this mistake? Even if you do not offer immediately to ship them new disks, no charge, someone has to answer the phone to tell them to RTFM and go to h*ll. How much does that person get paid? What could that person be doing to *improve* your customer relations, rather than annoying disgruntled customers who, through no fault of yours perhaps, will never buy another one of your products? I think if you look more carefully, you can easily justify 15 cents per copy. Especially when such a small cost can avert such a major upheaval for the customer installing your product, and at a time when that customer is forming a first impression of your organization. The alternative is slowly destroying the good faith of your customers, and therefore your revenue base, and that will cost you rather more. As a businessman, you cannot afford to overlook costs merely because they are intangible. FLAME OFF. Sorry for the tone of this: it hit a nerve. I hope all who see it will take my point, in spite of my firebreathing :-). -Jim Hickstein, VSAT Systems, Inc, San Jose, CA jxh@cup.portal.com ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!jxh
tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) (05/26/88)
In article <5873@cup.portal.com>, jxh@cup.portal.com writes: > In article <978@hsi.UUCP>, tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) writes: > >When I purchase media for duplication I'm concerned with both quality and > >price. If a vendor quotes a price of $.60 for 5.25" non-write-protected > >floppies in quantity versus $.85 for write protected floppies of the same > >brand and quality, I think my purchasing decision is a bit obvious. Now > >you may argue about customer satisfaction and so on but lets look at some > >numbers. > some numbers here deleted for brevity and inews. > > > Difference of: $1,250.00 > > >I don't believe I could convince any of my managers or those who have the > >authority to approve my requests that this kind of customer satisfaction > ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >is worth $1,250. However, I can easily convince them that if they don't > ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ [emphasis mine -jxh] > >use write-protected media, they pare down the use of labor-specific tasks > >at our duplicators, and provide our customers with sets of disk tabs, that > >not only will everyone save money but we can deliver the product on time. > > You, sir, are on the slippery slope of justifying poor quality on the basis > of aggregate cost savings, ignoring that cost relative to the price of the > product. When your company makes anything in sufficient volume, even the > smallest cost saving can seemingly be justified on the basis of how much > money the company would save (in aggregate); this temptation often proves > too great, and quality, little by little, is eroded. But where does this > stop? How about using $0.59 disks instead of $0.60 disks? $0.58? $0.57? > Where do you draw the line? How much value is placed on the customers' > time: to put on the write-protect tab; to growl at your organization for > not doing such a simple (not free, just simple) thing when they clearly > got plenty of money from the customer to cover the cost; to re-order the > product because of a stupid mistake that caused the disks to be overwritten? > How much does it cost your company to respond to those who make this mistake? > Even if you do not offer immediately to ship them new disks, no charge, > someone has to answer the phone to tell them to RTFM and go to h*ll. How > much does that person get paid? What could that person be doing to *improve* > your customer relations, rather than annoying disgruntled customers who, > through no fault of yours perhaps, will never buy another one of your > products? > > I think if you look more carefully, you can easily justify 15 cents per copy. > Especially when such a small cost can avert such a major upheaval for the > customer installing your product, and at a time when that customer is > forming a first impression of your organization. > > The alternative is slowly destroying the good faith of your customers, and > therefore your revenue base, and that will cost you rather more. As a > businessman, you cannot afford to overlook costs merely because they are > intangible. > > FLAME OFF. Sorry for the tone of this: it hit a nerve. I hope all who see > it will take my point, in spite of my firebreathing :-). > > -Jim Hickstein, VSAT Systems, Inc, San Jose, CA > jxh@cup.portal.com ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!jxh Jim, You not only missed the point but you missed the boat. But since you dragged the issue of quality into this, lets talk quality. First, every set of software masters, there are two, sent to our duplicator is created by yours truly. These sets are then compared against each other to insure they are identical. These masters are then shipped to our vendor. Second, our duplicator receives our masters and compares them to each other. The vendor then creates two (2) new sets, one copy each, of the software he just received. Next, he compares the two new masters to each other AND to the masters he just received. Finally, he ships off the new copies to me where I compare them against the masters from which they came. Third, once in production, our vendor has a forty (40) point quality control program that applies to every single disk and product they produce regardless of the customer. This includes media certification PRIOR to duplication and checking product samples randomly as they are produced. Fourth, once I receive the duplicated software, it undergoes another set of internal QC procedures INCLUDING comparing duplicated samples against the master, installing the software, and testing its functionality. And all this is performed whilest on my slippery slope with no regard to customer satisfaction and committment. I have been with my present employer for almost seven years. My primary responsibility during my tenure has been the production of quality software, delivered on-time, with low returns. My tenure speaks for itself. Now if you can't spend the two minutes it takes to protect your OWN butt by putting disk tabs on YOUR software that are FREE, then you get what you deserve. Ed Tankus. Net : {uunet,ihnp4,noao,yale}!hsi!tankus Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 Bell : (203) 562-2101
woolsey@nsc.nsc.com (Jeff Woolsey) (05/27/88)
Why can't the _end-user_ simply write-protect the diskettes before use?
jxh@cup.portal.com (05/28/88)
>You not only missed the point but you missed the boat. But since you dragged >the issue of quality into this, lets talk quality. >First, every set of software masters, there are two, sent to our duplicator >is created by yours truly. These sets are then compared against each other >to insure they are identical. These masters are then shipped to our vendor. [goes on to detail QA procedures that ensure the correct contents of a disk] You misunderstood me. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I did not wish to imply that you were shipping poor-quality disks with unverified contents: of course some effort is made to verify data after writing. It sounds very thorough and expensive. I congratulate you. How much does all that cost you, per disk? Consider *all* the costs, especially labor. Would 15 cents (the cost of putting the write-protect tab on the disk at the factory) add very much to that cost? My point is that whenever you start looking at a 15 cent expenditure in terms of how much money it all adds up to, you are on a very dangerous path. It is good to hear you defend quality so strongly; perhaps *you* can resist the temptation of saving the company "a million dollars" 15 cents at a time. Whenever this idea takes hold, no expense is too small to scrutinize. And they *all* add up to impressive numbers if you multiply them by a sufficient number of products. Consider how much all your revenue adds up to. To clarify further: don't argue that 15 cents shouldn't be spent on the basis of the pain of writing the aggregate check for $1250 as balanced against delta customer satisfaction. The latter is worth much more than that. To argue this point is to step on the slippery slope. >Now if you can't spend the two minutes it takes to protect your OWN butt by >putting disk tabs on YOUR software that are FREE, then you get what you >deserve. (They're not free, they're paid for. But anyway...) Just so! I quite agree! It is not your job to protect the customer. You're not protecting the customer, you're protecting *yourself* from the hidden cost associated with the customers' stupid mistakes! It is that cost that you must balance against the seemingly massive $1250. Re-read my previous article. Think of how much *revenue* is at stake, let alone expense. BTW, thanks for such a vigorous debate! Please don't take it personally; judging by your defense of quality, above, you sound like a capital fellow. Keep up the good work! -Jim Hickstein, VSAT Systems, Inc, San Jose, CA jxh@cup.portal.com ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!jxh P.S. Sorry I didn't include your message ID at the top; Portal makes certain things harder than they have to be.
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (05/28/88)
In article <992@hsi.UUCP> tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) writes: |Now if you can't spend the two minutes it takes to protect your OWN butt by |putting disk tabs on YOUR software that are FREE, then you get what you deserve. I have two comments to this. First, is there a software license on your product? If so, it probably says something along the lines of "Permission has been granted by [insert company name here] for the use of [program or package name here] on one computer. [insert company name here] retains ownership of this program." If so, it's not really the user's software is it? You're protecting your own software. (This is really just a technicality, but it does pop up with virtually every software package I've seen.) Second, if you truly believe that "you get what you deserve", I'm glad you're not working for my company. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
tat00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Tom Thackrey) (05/28/88)
I am perfectly capable of write protecting distribution disks before I install the product. Unfortunately, several products (including at least one from Microsoft) want to write on the protected floppy. The best reason for write protection by the vendor is to eliminate the urge to write on the distribution disks. My own frustration with distribution disks are these brain-dead setup programs which 1) don't tell you what they're doing, 2) do non-obvious things, like modify config.sys, 3) force you to completely re-install the product to change the configuration, and 4) aren't as smart enough to replace the previous version of their product without leaving a lot of unused files around. I realize that the vendors are trying to make their products installable by neophytes, but, I'd rather deal with a complex procedure than a setup program where I can't see what is going on inside. -- Tom Thackrey tat00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com <=> amdahl!tat00 [ My opinions are only my own. ]
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (05/28/88)
In article <5131@nsc.nsc.com> woolsey@nsc.UUCP (Jeff Woolsey) writes: >Why can't the _end-user_ simply write-protect the diskettes before use? Maybe the END-USER is lazy, or forgetful, or careless, etc., and after clobbering his distribution disk finds solace in blaming the publisher rather than his own stupidity? BTW, you can leave write-protected diskettes next to a ringing telephone and they will be nicely clobbered despite the write-protection. Maybe we should ask Microsoft for diskettes which somehow cannot be placed next to a phone, or on a hot radiator, or left in a car in full sunlight? -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (05/28/88)
In article <101@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >In article <5131@nsc.nsc.com> woolsey@nsc.UUCP (Jeff Woolsey) writes: >>Why can't the _end-user_ simply write-protect the diskettes before use? > >Maybe the END-USER is lazy, or forgetful, or careless, etc., and after >clobbering his distribution disk finds solace in blaming the publisher >rather than his own stupidity? [followed by examples of user carelessness] A good vendor will understand that end users can be careless. Whether it is right to blame the vendor under all circumstances really doesn't matter a bit. Any time a vendor leaves a hole in their overall customer service picture, they WILL be blamed by users, especially if the competition doesn't leave the same hole. I don't think there is a software vendor on the face of the earth that can afford to be cavalier about customer troubles, in the long run. That $1200 cost for using non-writeable diskettes is VERY bad economy. $1200 looks like a lot, but it IS only a few pennies per PAYING CUSTOMER. How much money was spent to get those customers in the first place? An upset customer will do a LOT more damage to your reputation than a happy one will help your reputation. That's fundamental common-sense in the business world. Sure, it may be my own fault for not write-protecting the original disks. But if you eliminate that particular mistake, I'll never be able to complain about it. And it is much more likely that I'll blame myself if I do something REALLY stupid (disk left in sun to melt, etc), than if I get in trouble because the manufacturer made assumptions about how careful I would be. Bullet-proofing your software means to do all you can to make sure the user CAN'T make a mistake. Good user interfaces do this. Good packaging does the same thing. Sure, there's cost/benefit tradeoffs, but they are reached when you're talking about a significant fraction of the selling price of the package, not a few cents! [Even with the low-volume prices given, at $0.15 per diskette, this would add less than a dollar to the cost of Microsoft C. That's .5% of the wholesale price! And at the prices MS pays for disks, the difference would be more like .10 total, if there were any difference at all.] That's my .001 cent worth! :-) Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
lotto@wjh12.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto) (05/28/88)
In article <101@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >In article <5131@nsc.nsc.com> woolsey@nsc.UUCP (Jeff Woolsey) writes: >>Why can't the _end-user_ simply write-protect the diskettes before use? > >Maybe the END-USER is lazy, or forgetful, or careless, etc., and after >... and other insulting remarks Wait a minute here! I have been watching this "conversation" with amazement. I have seen installation procedures that open a dozen files or so on a hard disk, rename important boot and system files to temporary names, try to write to a write protected installation disk, and bomb. Remember that stupid copy-protection scheme that involved writing to a physically damaged part of a disk and then reading the data back. If the programmer using this copy-protection routine just checked for a error return, the same behavior would result from a bootleg copy as from a write protected copy. Some companies did this. There have numerous other modes of failure from automatic installation programs that I been called upon to help someone recover from. I have personally sworn off of installation programs/procedures indefinitely (the non-batch type). The same damn thing goes for VMSINSTAL save-sets. The only installation scripts I trust are ones that I can READ FIRST! The bottom line is that any installation program that tries to do too much is going to run into a non-standard system and screw it up sooner or later. The ONLY safe practice you can follow is to know and understand what you are doing, and that is not always reasonable to expect of someone when you hand them an "INSTALL.EXE". Don't jump to the conclusion that everything is made clear in the instruction manual (What instruction manual? :-)) either. Or that the user has enough experience with his/her machine to know what is dangerous. Look at the latest WordPerfect 5.0 upgrade kits. They include a READ THIS insert, obviously added at some intermediate stage in the distribution process. It says (approximately) "On page 417, Do not FORMAT your hard disk if it has already been formatted." Some people just don't know enough about computers when they are born. They have to learn. The day that YOU make a careless mistake or wrong decision, may we all post to the net calling YOU an idiot? -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. UUCP: {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lotto ARPA: lotto@harvard.harvard.edu
tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) (05/31/88)
In article <101@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > In article <5131@nsc.nsc.com> woolsey@nsc.UUCP (Jeff Woolsey) writes: > >Why can't the _end-user_ simply write-protect the diskettes before use? > > Maybe the END-USER is lazy, or forgetful, or careless, etc., and after > clobbering his distribution disk finds solace in blaming the publisher > rather than his own stupidity? > > BTW, you can leave write-protected diskettes next to a ringing telephone > and they will be nicely clobbered despite the write-protection. Maybe > we should ask Microsoft for diskettes which somehow cannot be placed > next to a phone, or on a hot radiator, or left in a car in full sunlight? > -- > Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 > UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 > INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD As all the flames seem to indicate, I would not either work for those flaming me nor be hired by them. Maybe I should keep my resume to myself. :-) Wolf has aired a point missed by me and the rest of the torches. You can't protect all of the people all of the time. You do your best, as an employee and as a company, to protect users from themselves. But when these people can't figure out that the off switch is NOT on the monitor, when they DO figure this out and promptly power-off a Xenix system while database accesses and the like are in progress, what are you going to do? NOW you may argue 1) What's a neophyte doing with a Xenix system? 2) Who put THAT idiot in charge? 3) etc. I have seen more diskettes wrapped with rubber bands and paper clips than you can shake the proverbial stick at. No matter what you do people either won't understand or just refuse to listen. Heck, many states had to install a seat belt law because no one believed that using seat belts would save their lives. Now, maybe my employer should put in a clause in our licensing agreement that says if you do not apply your write protect tabs we will REVOKE your license! :-) This discussion is really bordering on the trivial now. Can we know move our joysticks on to the next asteroid belt? Cheers! -- Ed. Net : {uunet,ihnp4,noao,yale}!hsi!tankus Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 Bell : (203) 562-2101 Disclaimer: No one is responsible for my ravings. Not me and certainly NOT my employer!
lbr@holos0.UUCP (Len Reed) (05/31/88)
in article <101@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) says: > > In article <5131@nsc.nsc.com> woolsey@nsc.UUCP (Jeff Woolsey) writes: >>Why can't the _end-user_ simply write-protect the diskettes before use? > > Maybe the END-USER is lazy, or forgetful, or careless, etc., and after > clobbering his distribution disk finds solace in blaming the publisher > rather than his own stupidity? > It seems to me that an honorable manufacturer should takes steps to ensure that his product is easy to use and difficult to misuse if such steps do not add appreciably to the cost. It's difficult for me to see how the cost of the diskettes or the duplicators could amount to much (if anything) given Microsoft's volume. Have you ever seen a pre-recorded audio or video cassette that was write-enabled? Given the horror stories on the net about stupid users inserting diskettes sideways, etc., why tie up your support persons with this problem? Maybe you don't have any write-protect tabs handy. Maybe your're in a hurry--okay, this means you're reckless, but still, it's so trivial for the supplier to write protect the media. > BTW, you can leave write-protected diskettes next to a ringing telephone > and they will be nicely clobbered despite the write-protection. Maybe > we should ask Microsoft for diskettes which somehow cannot be placed > next to a phone, or on a hot radiator, or left in a car in full sunlight? This is just stupid. You're saying that because they can't protect against everything they should do nothing. By the same logic, auto manufacturers shouldn't put in seat belts since the user can still drive the car off a 300 foot cliff. But you're actually arguing that even if seatbelts were of negligible cost to the manufacturer, and given that no reasonable argument can be put forth for driving without them (as no reasonable argument exists for using writable distribution media), it should be the driver's responsibility for aquiring and installing the seatbelts. It is reprehensible to ship a product without the the required saftey equipment--to do so when the equipment is of negligible cost (diskettes without notches) shows that Microsoft really doesn't care about customer convenience. There is, of course, abundant evidence for this. (But then maybe you think "MORE XYZ" should stupidly sit waiting for keyboard input rather than reading the file or complaining. :-) ) -- "You know I'm right--you've resorted to abuse." --Good Neighbours TV show The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer, but we generally agree. - Len Reed
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (06/01/88)
Just one more thought, lest the flames die down... All of the arguments _against_ the vendor applying write-protect tabs work even better as arguments against the vendor supplying some infernal SETUP program. Creating those little monsters takes _skilled_ labor, and is a waste for people who have to adapt to different situations. Even skilled people need write-protects, possibly they need them even more because they are more likely to "skip past" the low-level stuff and rush on to the conceptually interesting parts; a real novice, who generally knows he's a novice, will follow the step-by-step procedures. (I'm assuming that a well-written novice procedure will include write-protecting the disks and/or _not_ include overwriting them.) My Zenith release of MS-DOS _did_ have write-protect tabs, by the way -- and the stupid SETUP program had one redeeming feature, namely the option to not proceed with it. (None of the previous DOS releases had an autoexec.bat, let alone a setup program.) ~~ bob,mon "In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..." -M.S. Holden