korpela@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct27.230636.1527@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >But the people on the net could hardly be described as having had >Beta Tested WinComm. >And how do you know what the actual Beta Testers actually received. The point is that there probably were no beta testers. Judging from the sheer amount of complaints, it looks like an untested piece of software was released without consideration for those who would attempt to use it. It's not the job of the prospective users to debug the program. I think synappsys will suffer for their lack of judgement. /\ korpela@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu Internet /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela>
kpmiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Kent P Miller) (10/30/90)
I'll also have to throw in my vote for a PD/shareware package with no Macro capabilities. Kent -- ----------------------- Kent Miller KENT@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu Bitnet -> KENT@uokucsvx
jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Ferreira Tinto) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct26.220436.5899@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >Given all of the flames I have read about software which is not >Let's help them help us. Remember, those of you who are >complaining about the Time Bomb that there is a reduced price >for Educational Users. And I don't think that $95 is too much >to ask. > Ok. Now take all the hours someone worked on WinComm, and tried to find bugs, tested it, like you did, and apply a minimum wage to that (In colorado I believe about 3:50 to 4 dollars) and deduct that from the 95 dollars. What does that leave? That's what I'd pay. And 'for educational users' doesn't apply to most people who DID the testing. Disclaimer: I didn't test very much, I don't want a copy coz I'm satisfied with what I got (I don't have high ambitions for what I use) And I WOULD pay what they ask, if they whould have made their product like other companies. But they used the labor of the net and I think they shoud reward it. Jan Vilhuber | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4] (The jammin' Bass) | Bitnet : jvilhube@DUCAIR -------------------------------------------------- "Drunken Milkman...driving drunk...Family of four, family no more...milk and blood...blood and milk." Scatterbrain
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (10/30/90)
Synappsys has an ad in INFOWORLD's October 29, 1990 issue for WINCOMM. They call it Communication at a new level. Anyway the list is $149.00 and their phone number is (405) 366-6363. So, Butch, Are we going to get a demo version of the final product put on Cica or will we now have to talk to them? By the way, for the final demo version the time bomb should have more relevence to the user, like 20 days after the user installs. -- Computer Science Center Richard Oppenheimer University of Maryland oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (office) College Park, Maryland ,USA richard@wam.umd.edu (home) ****** My employer cares not what I think and knows not what I say. ********
lyourk@cbnewsc.att.com (Loran N. Yourk) (10/30/90)
After trying to install wincomm (from a floppy disk after unzipping wincomm4.zip) according to the wincomm.txt file, I was unable to get a working copy, already expired. It is not November 1 yet so I expected it to work. My major complaint with the WinComm "Demo" is the trial period is far to short. This program was uploaded to an archive site (archive sites usually have files archived for a long time) and having the "Demo" be good for only 2 or 3 weeks is ridiculous. It normally takes me 2 to 3 months after I get a communications package to determine if it will meet all of my needs. This 2 or 3 week period is costly of my resources as well as the "nets". If a "Demo" is going to be uploaded to an archive site it should be good for a length of time relative to the installation date. Just my thoughts... Loran Yourk att!ihlpm!lyourk