JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (03/18/90)
In article <424@oregon.oacis.org>, jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org (John Meissen) says: > > >................. I tell the phone geek that the 5.05 patches > >complain about not having the right version to patch. Suprise, > >surprise - he actually knew that a wrong 5.04 was shipped out. > >So somebody else reported it before you did, and you don't get the >gold star for being the first. So sorry! He didn't say he was the first. He said he was surprised the guy he was talking to knew there was a problem. Lattice phone service has been known in the past for claiming ignorance about well known bugs/defects/problems etc. > >......... His solution - "Wait a couple of weeks - we are > >preparing a new 5.05 to take care of the bad 5.04 disks." > >You would rather they didn't change it? > > >What Lettuce should be doing, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY CLAIM THAT ONLY A > >*SMALL* number of the 5.04 disks were bad, is send out a set of > >5.05 MASTERS. Not the manuals, just the masters. Hell, they must > >have them, after all - what are they selling? > >Sheesh! What a bone-head! First of all, if they don't have a fix yet >they probably aren't shipping anything. Of course they have a fix. PLEASE READ. Lattice sent out 2 versions of 5.04, a very few of which were bad. The patch does not work on these few, but it does work on most of them. What he is saying is that Lattice should not make the unfortunate owners of these few bad copies wait when all Lattice has to do is send them a working version of 5.05 instead of making them wait for a patch. >The product consists of 5 disks. Your "solution" >would mean shipping 2,500 disks, at around a buck or more a disk. I'm having some trouble believing that Lattice would have to send out 5 whole disks. If this bug required more than 2 disks, it is serious enough to warrant actually sending out the disks anyway. Kurt -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (814) 862-8630 || "This town needs an enema." || || 600 E. Pollock Rd., #5705 || - Joker, "Batman" || || State College, PA 16801 --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet or jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu || || or jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || ----------------------------------------------------------------------
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (03/18/90)
In <1990Mar19.040021.6733@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Rich Carreiro) writes: >In article <2603c9cc:5940.4comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: > >>B) Not pissed the guy off so much that he was rude back (which, BTW, is >> unacceptable behavior for a CS Rep. I know, I do that kind of work from >> time to time). > >Note: I NEVER claimed that the CS rep was rude. The conversation was very >polite on both sides. I was simply infuriated after the fact about this >guy's cluelessness. I was also angered that he nixed every reasonable >suggestion I had, which were >a) sending me a GOOD 5.04 patch so that I could use my 5.05 patch >b) sending me a set of 5.05 masters since I am obviously a registered > owner (since they took my name and serial no before talking). As someone who is a CS rep (not with Lattice), I can tell you that not every rep will know all things. New rep? Stand-in for someone who is off sick? Someone who is sick themself, has personal problems, in a bad mood? Whatever, not all reps are created equal, not all good ones are good all the time. When you run into someone who will not give you satisfaction, it is perfectly acceptable to ask to speak to another rep, to their supervisor, or to call back in hopes of talking to someone else. Sometimes when you do this, you will find that what you want cannot be done, for policy or technical reasons. Sometimes you will get what you want, and in the process, if you mention the rep that did not do the right thing, the rep will get the feedback from the one who did help. I always try to be reasonable, even in the face of hostility or demanding behaviour from a customer, though there are times when I think certain customers should be forced to attend a course and be licensed to call for service. I do tend to stick to the letter of company policy when faced with customers who are unreasonable, rude, or who refuse to take reasonable steps in the troubleshooting process. I will tend to bend the rules some, or go a little beyond the call of duty when a customer is pleasant and reasonable, demanding or not. I do NOT mind a customer being insistent, or asking to speak to another rep or my superisor. >This despite the fact that I have heard from people who have done BOTH >those options. Well, that's the bottom line, isn't it? Another call might have saved a few of your blood vessels, and a lot of net.traffic. I have yet to call Lattice CS, but I have found the Lattice folks that I have met or have spoken with on line to be VERY knowledgeable and eager to please. >I admit it - I lost my cool, but I think there is NO excuse for mis-informed >CS and TS people. Skimping there only makes a company seem like it is >being run by buffoons - the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing. >And I have run up against this almost every time I've had the misfortune >to deal with Lattice Tech Support. CS reps are required to know a lot about different aspects of a company's products, not only from a technical standpoint, but from a standpoint of company policy in general, policy regarding particular products or groups of products, and so on. The good ones will always try to find a way to keep you happy, since that is their bread and butter, but it takes time for a rep to become good. Sorry about the long-windedness of this, but if more people would realize that there is a human being on the other side of the phone line, with basically the same doubts, fears, ambitions, and feelings as the caller, it would make the reps job easier, and get you what you want, more often. -larry -- Entomology bugs me. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh) (03/19/90)
I have a feeling I'm gonna regret getting into this, did you ask to talk to
someone else at Lattice, or did you just take the word of the first person
who was rude to you? If two other people got the full set, they must have
A) Talked to someone else who was a better-trained CS Rep, or
B) Not pissed the guy off so much that he was rude back (which, BTW, is
unacceptable behavior for a CS Rep. I know, I do that kind of work from
time to time).
/************************************************************
* *
* Everything above is copyright me. All rights unreserved. *
* uunet!tronsbox!bleys *
* *
* "The perversity of the universe tends to a maximum" *
* Finagle's First Law *
* J. Pournelle *
* *
************************************************************/rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Rich Carreiro) (03/19/90)
In article <2603c9cc:5940.4comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> bleys@tronsbox.UUCP (Bill Cavanaugh) writes: >I have a feeling I'm gonna regret getting into this, did you ask to talk to Nahhh, actually I'm quite harmless. >someone else at Lattice, or did you just take the word of the first person >who was rude to you? If two other people got the full set, they must have >A) Talked to someone else who was a better-trained CS Rep, or Undoubtedly true. I have had amazing bad luck dealing with them. Once I was trasferred to someone who admitted he knew nothing about the Amiga. >B) Not pissed the guy off so much that he was rude back (which, BTW, is > unacceptable behavior for a CS Rep. I know, I do that kind of work from > time to time). Note: I NEVER claimed that the CS rep was rude. The conversation was very polite on both sides. I was simply infuriated after the fact about this guy's cluelessness. I was also angered that he nixed every reasonable suggestion I had, which were a) sending me a GOOD 5.04 patch so that I could use my 5.05 patch b) sending me a set of 5.05 masters since I am obviously a registered owner (since they took my name and serial no before talking). This despite the fact that I have heard from people who have done BOTH those options. I admit it - I lost my cool, but I think there is NO excuse for mis-informed CS and TS people. Skimping there only makes a company seem like it is being run by buffoons - the left hand knows not what the right hand is doing. And I have run up against this almost every time I've had the misfortune to deal with Lattice Tech Support. -- Hollywood's Animato Lives! ==> Mike Jittlov <== ARPA: rlcarr@space.mit.edu is UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!space.mit.edu!rlcarr ** The Wizard of ** BITNET: rlcarr@space.mit.edu *** Speed and Time ***
jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org (John Meissen) (03/20/90)
> Of course they have a fix. PLEASE READ. Lattice sent out 2 versions > of 5.04, a very few of which were bad. The patch does not work on > these few, but it does work on most of them. What he is saying is > that Lattice should not make the unfortunate owners of these few bad > copies wait when all Lattice has to do is send them a working version > of 5.05 instead of making them wait for a patch. I am not personally familiar with the problem. What he does not make clear is the order in which things occurred. You are assuming that some incorrect ones went out first, then that was caught and an updated version was sent out which worked better. That isn't necessarily true. If it were, then all that had to be done was to ship the correct version. Unless I am confused by ambiguity on his part. He refers to the 5.04 patch. There was a 5.04 patch that was applied to V5.02. Perhaps what he did not make clear is that this might be a 5.05 patch to 5.04, in which case I sympathize, but I still maintain: > I'm having some trouble believing that Lattice would have to send out > 5 whole disks. If this bug required more than 2 disks, it is serious > enough to warrant actually sending out the disks anyway. The bug fix probably requires one disk, which is why they do not like to send new product. The product is 5 disks, and unfortunately, due to the way manufacturing happens, it is not practical to randomly pull random disks from the production lines. Also, the affected software could easily be distributed over several of the disks. I'm sure there is room for improvement. My issue is with this turkey's attitude. Constructive criticism and kind words will ensure improvement and better treatment next time. Harsh words and flames over a service being provided for free will guarantee only hard feelings. john-