DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) (05/31/91)
I've reported some of these bugs to QVT two versions ago, but they still havent' been fixed. 1) Remapped keys do not repeat. For example if I rempap the 'backspace' key to '^[OD' (cursor left), it will not send the repeated characters until you _release_ the key. A very annoying bug. 2) Typing ^D responds with a "invalid com port in config file", and then either gives me an UAE or completely locks Windows. If I type Shift-^D, it will actually send a ^D. Very annoying in Unix. 3) I can't get the dialer to send a '*'. If I put in *70,555-1111 as my number to dial, it will dial 70,555-1111. I end up having to use 1170,555-1111 to disable call waiting, (here in the states). Touch tone dialing, of course. 4) WinQVT has the annoying problem of turning off my num lock whenever I put it in the background. It makes no difference of what the previous state of the numlock key, before or after starting up WinQVT. 5) Please bring back the 'Setup:Numbers' menu item! The reason they gave to get rid of it was really poor. Having multiple numbers for a single setup is really handy. 6) The dialer dialog box does not pop up when you launch it anymore. I find it much easier to hit <ESC> to clear the box if I didn't want it to dial (which I usually do), than hitting ALT M D or using the mouse to bring up the box. Perhaps a simple checkbox in the setup file. WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. BTW I am using WinQVT 4.65. --- David Barr - Penn State CAC Student Consultant, Student Programmer DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu | dsbarr@endor.cs.psu.edu barr@barrstl.scol.pa.us |...psuvax1!hogbbs!barrstl!barr
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (05/31/91)
In article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) writes: >WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package >I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How do you know they're unresponsive to customer complaints? If you refuse to register, you're not a customer.
leoh@hardy.hdw.csd.harris.com (Leo Hinds) (06/01/91)
In article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) writes: > > I've reported some of these bugs to QVT two versions ago, but they still >havent' been fixed. <list of problems different than mine> >WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package >I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, >and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. I feel the same way ... but I can understand why "support of an unregistered user" might be not as good ... it is almost a catch-22 leoh@hdw.csd.harris.com Leo Hinds (305)973-5229 Gfx ... gfx ... :-) whfg orpnhfr V "ebg"grq zl fvtangher svyr lbh guvax V nz n creireg ?!!!!!!? ... znlor arkg gvzr
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (06/01/91)
From article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu>, by DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr): [I add a couple later...] > > I've reported some of these bugs to QVT two versions ago, but they still > havent' been fixed. > > 1) Remapped keys do not repeat. For example if I rempap the 'backspace' > key to '^[OD' (cursor left), it will not send the repeated characters until > you _release_ the key. A very annoying bug. > 2) Typing ^D responds with a "invalid com port in config file", and > then either gives me an UAE or completely locks Windows. If I type > Shift-^D, it will actually send a ^D. Very annoying in Unix. > 3) I can't get the dialer to send a '*'. If I put in *70,555-1111 > as my number to dial, it will dial 70,555-1111. I end up having to > use 1170,555-1111 to disable call waiting, (here in the states). > Touch tone dialing, of course. > 4) WinQVT has the annoying problem of turning off my num lock > whenever I put it in the background. It makes no difference of > what the previous state of the numlock key, before or after starting > up WinQVT. > 5) Please bring back the 'Setup:Numbers' menu item! The reason > they gave to get rid of it was really poor. Having multiple numbers > for a single setup is really handy. > 6) The dialer dialog box does not pop up when you launch it anymore. > I find it much easier to hit <ESC> to clear the box if I didn't want it > to dial (which I usually do), than hitting ALT M D or using the mouse > to bring up the box. Perhaps a simple checkbox in the setup file. 7) WinQVT can't handle the Alt-Tab keys. It ALWAYS makes Windows hang. 8) WinQVT ALWAYS kills the Debug Kernels when exiting. > BTW I am using WinQVT 4.65. I have tried it again and shelved it again. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu (CADSI) (06/01/91)
From article <24425107@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, by tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff): > In article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) writes: >>WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package >>I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > How do you know they're unresponsive to customer complaints? If you > refuse to register, you're not a customer. In business, customers generally include prospective customers. The prospects are EVERY bit as important as the licensed. I hope ALL software developers share this belief. |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Tom Hite | The views expressed by me | |Manager, Product development | are mine, not necessarily | |CADSI (Computer Aided Design Software Inc. | the views of CADSI. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) (06/01/91)
In article <24425107@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) says: >In article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David >Barr) >writes: >>and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >How do you know they're unresponsive to customer complaints? If you >refuse to register, you're not a customer. The whole idea of shareware is based on the idea that you try out the software in order to "test it out". I have no reason to believe that if I _do_ register for the package, that I will get a) a better package in this situation, or b) better support from WinQVT. Authors should be humble and professional enough to take suggestions and criticisms from any source. If they do, I'll be the happy to register, because they will a) have a better package and b) show me that they care about what my needs are. --Dave
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (06/01/91)
>>>WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package >>>I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> How do you know they're unresponsive to customer complaints? If you >> refuse to register, you're not a customer. > >In business, customers generally include prospective customers. The >prospects are EVERY bit as important as the licensed. I hope ALL >software developers share this belief. This is probably one of the ways where shareware has to be a little different. In shareware, you have given away your product FIRST and must then cultivate actual *customers* after the fact. Everyone is important, yes, but your obligation to support non-payers is minimal. Otherwise there would be no incentive to pay. I am sure shareware developers record ideas for improvements from everyone, paying and non-paying alike. But *responsiveness*, in the sense of hand holding freeloaders who complain, is not a reasonable expectation. If registered WinQVT users get no response either, then there is grounds for legitimate complaint; but the above quoted posting gives no evidence about this one way or the other. -- Show me a sane man and I will ///O\ Tom Neff cure him for you. -- Carl Jung \\\O/ tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM
ibekhaus@athena.mit.edu (Ira B. Ekhaus) (06/01/91)
ibekhaus@athena.mit.edu
quimby@madoka.its.rpi.edu (Quimby Pipple) (06/01/91)
But wait, there's more: 9) The reliability of kermit transfers is something like 40% with large files. MSKermit, even on a slow machine, is much more reliable as a DOS background task. 10) The scrollback buffer is only about two pages, which is quite a bit smaller than the Windows Terminal program. Quimby -- quimby@mts.rpi.edu, quimby@rpitsmts.bitnet
chenh@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( h philip chen ) (06/02/91)
quimby@mts.rpi.edu writes: >But wait, there's more: > >9) The reliability of kermit transfers is something like 40% with >large files. MSKermit, even on a slow machine, is much more reliable >as a DOS background task. > >10) The scrollback buffer is only about two pages, which is quite >a bit smaller than the Windows Terminal program. here, one more! 11) The ``Log File'' functions doesn't work. I've tried it on 3 separate occassions, and all I found in the saved-files were a bunch of nonsense. (Either that, or I better sign up for some data encryption/decryption classes:-)) -philip chenh@athena.ecs.csus.edu PS. On the good side, their README.WRI file is less ambiguous now.
David Barr <DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> (06/02/91)
In article <1991Jun1.184145.8392@csusac.csus.edu>, chenh@athena.ecs.csus.edu ( h philip chen ) says: >here, one more! >11) The ``Log File'' functions doesn't work. I've tried it on 3 separate > occassions, and all I found in the saved-files were a bunch of nonsense. > (Either that, or I better sign up for some data encryption/decryption > classes:-)) (I was the origional poster, and forgot one more: 12) When the communications connection is disrupted, (ex: someone picking up a local extension while you are connected) WinQVT will lock up Windows for about 10-15 seconds before putting up a "Communication Suspended!" dialog box. This is so silly. Why does it have to do this? Also, I'd like WinQVT to be able to support resizable windows. It still has problems dealing with non-24x80 size windows. (at least with my Unix boxes) It would be nice to have vt220 or vt320 emulation support. --- David Barr - Penn State CAC Student Consultant, Student Programmer DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu | dsbarr@endor.cs.psu.edu barr@barrstl.scol.pa.us |...psuvax1!hogbbs!barrstl!barr standard disclamer applies.
Renee@cup.portal.com (Renee Linda Roberts) (06/03/91)
I also looked at WINQVT, and decided that as a product charging what it does, that it needs major improvement. I went and shelled the bucks for Crosstalk for Windows, and am thoroughly satisfied. The only thing I wish it had was automatic starts for Y modem/batch and Cserve protocols. But I can live w/o these. Renee Roberts
ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) (06/04/91)
In article <24425112@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >>In business, customers generally include prospective customers. The >>prospects are EVERY bit as important as the licensed. I hope ALL >>software developers share this belief. > > This is probably one of the ways where shareware has to be a little > different. In shareware, you have given away your product FIRST and > must then cultivate actual *customers* after the fact. Everyone is > important, yes, but your obligation to support non-payers is minimal. > Otherwise there would be no incentive to pay. The obligation to non-payers is minimal but if you expect to get more shareware fees then at least tell the non-payers that the problems reported have been fixed and distributed to the 'paying' customers. If I find a shareware product that works but needs bug fixes and the author has made little to fix them, what is my incentive to register versus find another product which might also do the job? > I am sure shareware developers record ideas for improvements from everyone, > paying and non-paying alike. But *responsiveness*, in the sense of hand > holding freeloaders who complain, is not a reasonable expectation. I tend to put bug fixes and new funtionality in two different categories. There might be a bug that only a few sites can reproduce due to differences in environment. What if only the non-payers report the bug. Will it be fixed? > If registered WinQVT users get no response either, then there is grounds > for legitimate complaint; but the above quoted posting gives no evidence > about this one way or the other. If non-registered WinQVT users see no evidence that the author will support the product after registration then there is no incentive to register in the first place! Earle _____________________________________________________________________________ ____ ____ ___ Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: ake@dayton.saic.com uucp: dayvb!ake SPAN: 28284::ake
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (06/04/91)
[Followups to comp.misc, because this is rapidly receding from the subject of Windows] In article <1991Jun3.140451.1651@dayton.saic.com> ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) writes: >In article <24425112@bfmny0.BFM.COM>, tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >>>In business, customers generally include prospective customers. The >>>prospects are EVERY bit as important as the licensed. I hope ALL >>>software developers share this belief. >> >> This is probably one of the ways where shareware has to be a little >> different. In shareware, you have given away your product FIRST and >> must then cultivate actual *customers* after the fact. Everyone is >> important, yes, but your obligation to support non-payers is minimal. >> Otherwise there would be no incentive to pay. > > The obligation to non-payers is minimal but if you expect to get more >shareware fees then at least tell the non-payers that the problems reported >have been fixed and distributed to the 'paying' customers. If I find a >shareware product that works but needs bug fixes and the author has made little >to fix them, what is my incentive to register versus find another product which >might also do the job? As long as a steady stream of corrected and improved versions exists, as indicated by a README or CHANGES file or an appendix in the manual, then the inquiring reader -- paying or non-paying -- ought to have all the evidence he or she needs to decide that the authors pay attention to bug reports. It's difficult to imagine any further, special way to inform NON-payers, specifically, about this. Anyway, the shareware principle is "If you like this program, then pay $X." If you DON'T like it, DON'T pay. The author is under no obligation to jump through hoops for free until you decide the product is good enough to pay for. >> I am sure shareware developers record ideas for improvements from everyone, >> paying and non-paying alike. But *responsiveness*, in the sense of hand >> holding freeloaders who complain, is not a reasonable expectation. > > I tend to put bug fixes and new funtionality in two different categories. >There might be a bug that only a few sites can reproduce due to differences in >environment. What if only the non-payers report the bug. Will it be fixed? One assumes the vendor will fix any reported bug that's likely to affect a significant number of users, regardless of who reports it. But as I said, the vendor's obligation to then render an accounting of his bug fixing activities to unregistered users is slim to none! If you want to be automatically informed of improvements, register. That's common sense. >> If registered WinQVT users get no response either, then there is grounds >> for legitimate complaint; but the above quoted posting gives no evidence >> about this one way or the other. > > If non-registered WinQVT users see no evidence that the author will >support the product after registration then there is no incentive to register >in the first place! Terms of support are usually clearly laid out in the documentation. "Seeing evidence" is a non-issue, unless it's a code word for giving non-payers the same support that payers get, in which case don't hold your breath.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (06/06/91)
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: |In article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) writes: |>WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package |>I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |>and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |How do you know they're unresponsive to customer complaints? If you |refuse to register, you're not a customer. It's not unreasonable to say "If you clean this up, I'll buy it." If the WinQVT people don't clean it up, they've lost a customer. If shareware authors want people to buy their stuff, they better show a good attitude to people that might register. "You didn't pay. Piss on you." Yeah, I want to send my money to a company like that. Sean -- ** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu>
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun5.200833.26210@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: >|In article <91151.001743DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu> DSB100@psuvm.psu.edu (David Barr) writes: >|>WinQVT is a usable package. In fact sorry to say it is the best package >|>I know, but I refuse to register for a package that has this many bugs, >| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >|>and seems very unresponsive to customer complaints. >| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >|How do you know they're unresponsive to customer complaints? If you >|refuse to register, you're not a customer. > >It's not unreasonable to say "If you clean this up, I'll buy it." Not unreasonable at all! But having told them this, it IS unreasonable to expect them to engage in a full customer-support dialog about it with you, as if you were a paying user. That is what paying is FOR. As an unpaid user, you are welcome to contribute any comments or suggestions you want. You are not entitled to support time in response. >the WinQVT people don't clean it up, they've lost a customer. You can't lose what you never had. At worst they lose a POTENTIAL customer. Hopefully they were able to spend that time giving a paid user the support he or she needed, or adding features people want, so as to enhance their reputation and product's value overall. > If >shareware authors want people to buy their stuff, they better show a >good attitude to people that might register. That's not really how shareware works. Shareware says, "Here's a product. If you like it, send $X to address Y." If shareware authors want people to buy their stuff, they better distribute stuff that's good enough for people to say, "Yeah, I like it -- here's my check." Everyone in software knows that some people are professional kvetchers, and that basing one's support policies on them is no way to win. >"You didn't pay. Piss on you." Yeah, I want to send my money to a >company like that. There does not seem to have been any such message from the WinQVT people in this case. An unregistered person wanted some changes from them, and didn't get them, and thinks they're bad as a result. I disagree. -- "How can a man of integrity get along /// Tom Neff in Washington?" -- Richard Feynman /// tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM