sharp@ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) (02/16/90)
Clearly the subject indicates an unfavorable comment on
ParcPlace systems. So before I launch into the complaint, let me
state that I feel 2.5 is an excellent version of Smalltalk and that
ParcPlace put out best environment I have seen.
Now to the complaint. When we originally decided on ParcPlace
smalltalk it was because the system was supported on many different
platforms. These included Sun, Apollo, IBM, with Mac in the works.
This was perfect for our environment. Our main development platforms
are Apollos, but we also want to demonstrate systems on Macs, since
they are more portable. What is more, ParcPlace made it sound like
all the platforms would remain supported.
The lab projects are oriented to AI, and Smalltalk provides an
interesting vehicle for prototyping systems and a great time saving
environment for implementing thesis projects.
First we purchased a few copies for the Apollos, then we joined
the ParcRanger program. Apollos was our main platform, but we also
purchased Sun3, Sun4, IBM, and Mac. All was well, then came the 2.5
release.
Much to our dismay, ParcPlace declined to upgrade the Apollo
platform. Their reason was that it was not cost effective. Could
this have something to do with the recent purchase of Apollo by HP ?
In fact, HP *paid* ParcPlace to port Smalltalk to their platform. So
ParcPlace approached Apollo about taking supporting ParcPlace in the
upgrade of smalltalk on the Apollo platform.
I find this type of behavior disgusting. Why should Apollo pay
for the privilege of having a new smalltalk on their machines ? Did
ParcPlace ask Sun to pay ? IBM ? Apple ? I doubt it, they would
likely be told where they could stick their question. I could
understand if ParcPlace did not have smalltalk already running on the
Apollo platform. But they do, and the upgrade to 2.5 can not take
that much work. Most of the hard stuff is already done (Graphics).
What does this mean to you as a customer of ParcPlace. It means
*BEWARE*, the next release may NOT support your platform. Clearly
ParcPlace does not feel bound by their support and upgrade license
policy. If they did, they would take the small effort and port 2.5 to
the Apollo platform. As it is, we are shafted.
PARCPLACE SYSTEMS IS UNRELIABLE !
I realize that there may not be that many Apollo sites that have
purchased smalltalk. On the other hand, by the next release, perhaps
the amount of Sun3 sites will have dropped, or the amount of DEC
stations will not be what ParcPlace expected. So who is next
ParcPlace ? Who will be the next platform dropped from your current
line ? Who else will be asked to pay for the privilege of having your
smalltalk upgraded for their platform ? What other license
agreements will you break ?
In case you are wondering, I have mailed your support line about
these disagreements. I have mailed both the generic support line, and
directly to Lynn. I have received no reply. Perhaps now you will
grace me with a reply, perhaps even a working 2.5 for the Apollos. Or
do I have to pay for composition of the reply ?
My request is that if you find this as disgusting as I do, that
you send mail to support@parcplace.com and let them know.
Maurice
The opinions above may not represent the feelings of the University of
Calgary, but they certainly reflect those of most of the people at the
Lab, and those who decide how our lab money is spent.
Maurice Sharp MSc. Student
University of Calgary Computer Science Department
2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA
Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!sharp