Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu (11/08/90)
In article <14334@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Any company (Microsoft) that would subject customers to a 900 number > to reach technical support is way down on the food chain, IMHO. Higdon has a HUMBLE OPINION??!? No, but seriously, they recently instituted this for support of MS DOS ONLY ... all their applications support is free. Since they didn't sell DOS themselves, but only licensed it to other companies, for years they didn't support it directly. This is now changing, and I am sure that the 900 number is an effective filter for all the millions of DOS copies out there. Can you imagine, in place of the 900 number, if they did a "can I have your registration number please"? > I wrote a letter to Microsoft telling them what I thought of a > particular product (and them for having a 900 number) and six weeks > later received a phone call from someone who, in essence, told me that > all the problems were causes by (in order), my hardware, my other > software, my incompetence. This person left a call back number and an > email "name" to facilitate a return call. When I called back, I was > informed that they were aware of no such person. Gee, *I* haven't had these problems. What makes Higdon so special? But he often has problems communicating with phone companies and toll carriers too... > Microsoft is a company that could probably have all of its phones > disconnected and not suffer a reduction in communication capabiltiy. Hmmmmm ... I doubt it. I have always had good support from them. There is an advantage though to living within toll-free calling of them (Seattle). Also, if you want to follow up with a particular support person, they will give you their network username. You can really blow their mind by getting on usenet and addressing your followup communication to username@microsoft.uucp. I have done this, and it ALWAYS gets a quick phone call, especially from the NEW folks over there. It is a fast growing company, so the majority of support folks are "new." Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP
john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/09/90)
hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu writes: > Higdon has a HUMBLE OPINION??!? No, but seriously, they recently > instituted this for support of MS DOS ONLY ... all their applications > support is free. Oh, I see. The "product" that put them on the map (other than a BASIC) is treated as a second-rate stepsister. The company has to protect itself from all those unwashed masses who might actually have some legitimate problem (oh, but how could they--DOS is perfect, right?) > Gee, *I* haven't had these problems. What makes Higdon so special? > But he often has problems communicating with phone companies and toll > carriers too... Well "Gee", that's wonderful for you. Of course, I deal with telecommunications and computer companies day in and day out without much difficulty. It's my job. I don't write about the successes much because it's pretty dull, but the failures are sometimes worth mentioning. The reason Microsoft stands out as being a stinker is because it ISN'T the norm. I have had great success dealing with dozens of hardware and software vendors. NOT with Microsoft. And the underlying problem seems to stem from how they handle telecommunications. > There is an advantage though to living within toll-free calling of > them (Seattle). Maybe if you had spent $15.00 on 900 charges getting nowhere rather than making a free local call, you would have a different view. > Also, if you want to follow up with a particular > support person, they will give you their network username. Roger. And when I called back to talk to this "particular person", the person that answered told me that he couldn't locate any "username" such as the one I gave. So I ended up relating the whole problem once again to this person. Yes, I had the correct name. > You can really blow their mind by getting on usenet and addressing your > followup communication to username@microsoft.uucp. I have done this, > and it ALWAYS gets a quick phone call, especially from the NEW folks > over there. It is a fast growing company, so the majority of support > folks are "new." When I offered to communicate with the original person via e-mail, there was much hemming and hawing and I was discouraged from doing this. At any rate, when I get home this weekend, I'll try to e-mail the username that I was origially supplied. And then I'm going to look for a different platform to handle my requirements. John Higdon <john@mojave.ati.com> (hiding out in the desert)
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) (11/14/90)
In article <14517@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook@beaver.cs.washington.edu writes: > > Higdon has a HUMBLE OPINION??!? No, but seriously, they recently > > instituted this for support of MS DOS ONLY ... all their applications > > support is free. > Oh, I see. The "product" that put them on the map (other than a BASIC) > is treated as a second-rate stepsister. The company has to protect > itself from all those unwashed masses who might actually have some > legitimate problem (oh, but how could they--DOS is perfect, right?) What a hostile person you are. If you reasoned as well as you hate you'd get somewhere. DOS has been sold strictly as an OEM product. That means it was "wholesaled" to an OEM for them to sell with their product, the computer. Microsoft receives only a few dollars a copy for each MS-DOS. In a similar manner, car makers may license a Bosch ABS system. If you have a problem with that ABS, you don't call Bosch, you call GM. GM made the retail profit on the product and part of their contract with Bosch is that GM supports it. The same holds true for MS-DOS. Part of our contract with the OEM is that they support the product they sell, not us. We provide support to OUR customer - the OEM. They can call us any time. We also provide them training programs, I'm pretty sure. One thing which confuses people is that the disks say Microsoft all over them, whereas their ABS system just says "GM". This makes it harder for folks to understand that they bought it from the OEM, not Microsoft. There's two reasons for this. One is Copyright. The ABS is protected by patents, but software is protected by Copyright. One requirement for copyright protection is a notice; our product *has* to say Microsoft on it and in it to be protected. Secondly, an operating system is a standard product and the OEM needs to assure the customer that they're getting the real standard, so the OEM wants to make sure that the user knows it's Microsoft DOS. In the early years this wasn't always true; some OEMs forbade us to say that their BASIC was Microsoft BASIC. So we offer "free" support for our retail products because we received the retail markup and support is one of the things you do to earn that money. We didn't receive the retail markup for DOS, the OEM did, and the OEM is the person who needs to support it; that was their agreement. As a convenience to customers who don't want to call the OEM or whose OEM's are not doing a good job, Microsoft now offers support for DOS, but we have to charge for it now since we didn't get any money for that service when we sold your OEM the DOS. gordon letwin not an official microsoft spokesperson
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/17/90)
gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: > What a hostile person you are. If you reasoned as well as you hate > you'd get somewhere. [plus a lengthy explanation of why Microsoft isn't responsible for DOS] My version of DOS 4.01 says nothing but Microsoft on the box, the manuals and the disks. I purchased it at Fry's Electronics as generic Microsoft DOS 4.01. It is NOT OEMed. So who is responsible? Who made the big bucks? Now, that out of the way, let me set the record straight on what product my original question was about. It was Microsoft Windows 3.0. Is that OEMed as well? I bought it at the same time as the DOS at Fry's. Your comments are certainly consistent with those I received from others at Microsoft. The problem lies everywhere else. My hardware, my other software, even me. Now you claim that others are getting rich off of Microsoft products, so the company isn't even responsible for collecting the profits! How do you equate my observations of poor customer service with hate? Is it hostility to expect that a manufacturer would make even a reasonable attempt to support a product? Is demurement about a 900 number for "customer service" a symptom of latent aggression? > So we offer "free" support for our retail products because we received > the retail markup and support is one of the things you do to earn that > money. We didn't receive the retail markup for DOS, the OEM did, and > the OEM is the person who needs to support it; that was their > agreement. As a convenience to customers who don't want to call the > OEM or whose OEM's are not doing a good job, Microsoft now offers > support for DOS, but we have to charge for it now since we didn't get > any money for that service when we sold your OEM the DOS. I'm sorry, but my observations indicate that this is totally bogus. The only number listed for technical help with Windows 3.0 is a 900 number. Could you supply me with the OEM for that product? I am positive that whoever it is, they could supply far better assistance than I have managed to get from Microsoft (for my $15.00 in 900 charges). Actually, even though the principle of "900" customer assistance is offensive, my attitude would be somewhat different if I could have received any value for my $15.00. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
0003747957@mcimail.com (Ed Belisle) (11/19/90)
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) write: > The only number listed for technical help with Windows 3.0 is a 900 > number. Could you supply me with the OEM for that product? I am I always thought the 900 number was for DOS support only. The number for Microsoft Technical support is (and has been for quite some time) 206-454-2030. They opened a new number that skips the first menu and goes directly to Windows Support. It is 206-637-7098. > than I have managed to get from Microsoft (for my $15.00 in 900 > charges). Actually, even though the principle of "900" customer You *paid* for Windows support? Next time try directory assistance. Ed Belisle
raj@hpindwa.cup.hp.com (Rick Jones) (11/21/90)
Stepping away from Microsoft specifics... I think that using a 900 number is something of an interesting idea for providing support on a time and materials basis (ie no support contract). However, it would seem most apropriate as a supplement for a service contract type of support plan rather than the only method of support. Apart from that, it seems like a good way to be able to charge for support with minimal overhead. (ignoring the debate over free support of PC software...) The offensive part of it would be where you call and get connected with Joe Q. Buffoon support person. In that case however, the offense should be taken at Buffoon rather than the 900 number. Richard Anders Jones | MPE/XL Networking Engineer Hewlett-Packard Co. | No 900 number yet... Being an employee of a Standards Company, all Standard Disclaimers Apply