hansm@duteca8.tudelft.nl (Hans Mulder) (07/16/90)
Since I switched to system 6.0.4 MS Excel (v. 1.0) stopped working.
I called microsoft and was told that the solution to my problem was an
upgrade to version 2.2.
However,
1) I am (was) happy with version 1.0,
2) an upgrade to v 2.2 cost ~ Hfl 700 (= ~ $ 370) in Holland
My question now is:
1. who is to blame that v. 1.0 doesn't work anymore
- MicroSoft (according to me)
- Apple
- Me (according to the microsoft salesman)
2. If it is MicroSoft, is this as a breach of contract?
Can I demand them to fix my v. 1.0?
There must be more people who ran into this problem. What did you do
buy another spreadsheet (WingZ?).
In general I don't mind paying for added functionality if I need it,
I don't like paying for bugs, and I definitely don't like being forced
to pay for bugs.
Any comments, flames, tips, etc. welcome.
Hans Mulder
hansm@duteca.tudelft.nlac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) (07/17/90)
In article <90198.134333SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu>, SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu (Steven A. Schrader) writes: > In article <989@duteca.UUCP>, hansm@duteca8.tudelft.nl (Hans Mulder) says: >> >>Since I switched to system 6.0.4 MS Excel (v. 1.0) stopped working. >>I called microsoft and was told that the solution to my problem was an >>upgrade to version 2.2. > >> >>My question now is: >> 1. who is to blame that v. 1.0 doesn't work anymore >> - MicroSoft (according to me) > I would say Apple if anyone. Basically Microsoft did some things utilizing the > way the System worked. When Apple upgraded, they had to implement changes in > order to make room for the IIci and the portable. It was Apple's change in arch > etechture that screwed things up. > You mean you don't know about Microsoft's famous "we'll write it any way we damn please" attitude? Every time Apple comes out with a new version of the System, some Microsoft product breaks because they can't seem to remember how to follow the guidelines... > Anyway, as far is Excel is concerned they can not be help liable for changes in > the environment that are beyond their control. > The programming environment *is* within their control. They just don't care. > Noone is forcing you to upgrade to the new system, therefore you CAN still use > their software. So I think the breach of contract does not apply. They did NOT > say that it would work with your version of the software, only the older > version. You're probably right about the legalities... but most of us in the Mac world are pretty tired of having to upgrade Word or Works or Excel every time Apple adds something new to the System... ..and you *know* that Word 4 is gonna break bigtime when System 7.0 hits.. :( > >Steven A. Schrader > -- || C Irby || "In one 8 hour period, I worked on a VAX, a ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu || Macintosh, three MS-DOS clones, a Novell server, ac08@untvax || a Unix box, and an Apple IIGS. || And people wonder why my concentration is
SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu (Steven A. Schrader) (07/18/90)
In article <989@duteca.UUCP>, hansm@duteca8.tudelft.nl (Hans Mulder) says: > >Since I switched to system 6.0.4 MS Excel (v. 1.0) stopped working. >I called microsoft and was told that the solution to my problem was an >upgrade to version 2.2. > >My question now is: > 1. who is to blame that v. 1.0 doesn't work anymore > - MicroSoft (according to me) > - Apple > - Me (according to the microsoft salesman) I would say Apple if anyone. Basically Microsoft did some things utilizing the way the System worked. When Apple upgraded, they had to implement changes in order to make room for the IIci and the portable. It was Apple's change in arch etechture that screwed things up. Anyway, as far is Excel is concerned they can not be help liable for changes in the environment that are beyond their control. Noone is forcing you to upgrade to the new system, therefore you CAN still use their software. So I think the breach of contract does not apply. They did NOT say that it would work with your version of the software, only the older version. Steven A. Schrader (SAS102 @ Psuvm.Bitnet) /=============================================================================\ | "This is stupid, you answer my questions with more questions, you teach | | nothing!" | | "We are taught in order with one's capacity to learn." | | -- David Carradine in Iron Cricle | \=============================================================================/
norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (07/18/90)
From article <29753.26a33d70@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, by ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)): > In article <90198.134333SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu>, SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu (Steven A. Schrader) writes: >> In article <989@duteca.UUCP>, hansm@duteca8.tudelft.nl (Hans Mulder) says: >>> >>> [Hans complains that Excel 1.0 stopped working when he upgraded >>> to System 6.0.4. He wants to know if he should blame Microsoft or >>> Apple.] >> [Stephen argues that it's Apple's fault because they somehow changed >> the Mac's archetecture in order to support the IIci and the portable.] > You mean you don't know about Microsoft's famous "we'll write it any way > we damn please" attitude? Every time Apple comes out with a new version > of the System, some Microsoft product breaks because they can't seem to > remember how to follow the guidelines... And don't forget that Apple bent over backwards trying to keep Microsoft's programs working. As I recall, early versions of MultiFinder had special 'Microsoft aware' sections of code. One of the things this code did was to attempt to load Excel into the first megabyte of memory: It seems that Excel made some assumptions that prevented it from running in high memory. IMHO, Apple should have just let Microsoft's products break, thus unleashing the rath of users upon Microsoft. If this had been done, perhaps Microsoft would have a less cavalier attitude about the programming guidelines today. Honestly, most programs have no trouble at all surviving system software upgrades. I just can't understand why Microsoft should have such a poor track record on this point. Please forgive me if the above sounds a bit flammy. I guess I've just run into too many bugs in Word (3.0 to 4.0) and it's left a bad taste in my mouth. I've managed to reduce my stress level somewhat by avoiding Microsoft products whenever possible. Now I launch Word only when I need that one little feature that my normal word processor doesn't have--I'm happy to say that is a rare event. --Norm -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences BangPath: 219 Mathematical Sciences Building {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman Stillwater, OK USA 74078-0599
ddaniel@lindy.Stanford.EDU (D. Daniel Sternbergh) (07/18/90)
In article <90198.134333SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu> SAS102@psuvm.psu.edu (Steven A. Schrader) writes: >In article <989@duteca.UUCP>, hansm@duteca8.tudelft.nl (Hans Mulder) says: >> >>Since I switched to system 6.0.4 MS Excel (v. 1.0) stopped working. >>I called microsoft and was told that the solution to my problem was an >>upgrade to version 2.2. > >> >>My question now is: >> 1. who is to blame that v. 1.0 doesn't work anymore >> - MicroSoft (according to me) >> - Apple >> - Me (according to the microsoft salesman) > >I would say Apple if anyone. Basically Microsoft did some things utilizing the >way the System worked. When Apple upgraded, they had to implement changes in >order to make room for the IIci and the portable. It was Apple's change in arch >etechture that screwed things up. And now, the opposing view: Well, not *exactly* an opposing view, but Microsoft is notorious for turning out darned good software by doing unorthodox things in their programs. So, although I cannot speak to this particular instance, it would be entirely plausible if Microsoft's "utilizing the way the System worked" actually consisted of Microsoft using things in a quirky way contrary to Apple's recommended programming techniques. == Daniel == 'At your age,' Allie wept, 'you ought to be ashamed.' -- 'Well, I'm not,' the future Mrs. Boniek rejoined. 'A professor, and in Stanford, California, so he brings the sunshine also. I intend to spend many hours working on my tan.' from "The Satanic Verses", by Salman Rushdie
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (07/18/90)
<I would say Apple if anyone. Basically Microsoft did some things utilizing the <way the System worked. When Apple upgraded, they had to implement changes in <order to make room for the IIci and the portable. It was Apple's change in arc h < etechture that screwed things up. < So how come most other companies had no trouble keeping their programs working without change when Apple released 6.0.4? Could it be that Microsoft violated the rules somewhere in Excel? Tim Smith
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (07/19/90)
< ..and you *know* that Word 4 is gonna break bigtime when System 7.0 hits.. :( My $55 copy of FullWrite Professional 1.1 seems to work under 7.0 alpha. So it is possible to get word processors that won't break. Tim Smith
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (07/19/90)
< And don't forget that Apple bent over backwards trying to keep Microsoft's < programs working. As I recall, early versions of MultiFinder had special < 'Microsoft aware' sections of code. One of the things this code did was < to attempt to load Excel into the first megabyte of memory: It seems that < Excel made some assumptions that prevented it from running in high memory. What do you mean "early versions of MultiFinder"? The version that came with System 6.0.4 does this. Unless you've switched over to the 7.0 alpha, I don't think this can be called early...:-) You can see if a particular version of MultiFinder does this by taking a copy of Excel (before the 2.? version, which I'm told no longer has to run in the first meg) and changing the creator type. It will no longer work on a machine with more than a meg. When you start it, you will see a dialog box flash into existance, and then go away before you can read it. If you do something to slow down your Mac, like tell TMON to checksum the ROM on every trap, you will be able to see that the dialog box says something like "Insufficient Memory". Tim Smith
davidmck@microsoft.UUCP (David MCKINNIS) (07/24/90)
In article <31883@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: >< ..and you *know* that Word 4 is gonna break bigtime when System 7.0 hits.. :( > >My $55 copy of FullWrite Professional 1.1 seems to work under 7.0 alpha. >So it is possible to get word processors that won't break. > > Tim Smith I was going to stay out of the flames, but seeing the competition mentioned :-) ... Apple ran Word 4 under system 7.0 as a sample program at the Worldwide Developer's Conference and we didn't have any problems. Excel wouldn't run at the time because of a bug in the system that has since been fixed. I don't think 4.0b will have any problems with System 7. David McKinnis Software Design Engineer - Mac Word Microsoft I'm paid to program, not to have opinions.