jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) (08/24/90)
In various groups on the net I see references to developers talking with Microsoft about upgrades/support/questions etc.. My question is: How did you do it? I've called my so called 'Corporate Accounts' number and can not get to talk to ANY technical support people period. She just says no. Call Microsoft Online. I can't believe this. My company has spent tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on these people's software and I can not get through to one technical support chap (or chapette'). I have questions delving deep into the bowels of Windows 3.0 (device drivers etc...) that require INTERACTIVE communication not EMail! How do you get through to these people? I'm getting frustrated enough that I'm just about ready to recommend on our corporate network that no MS software be purchased unless there is no other choice (which is rarely the case). How do you get to talk to real voices at Microsoft? -- Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company .....uunet!atexnet!kodak!sisd!jdg (716)-726-0084 Eastman Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine not theirs.
jmann@angmar.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (08/24/90)
I've only needed to talk to Microsoft tech support a couple of times, and it has worked well. I just called the phone number that is included in the manual. A coworker of mine has used Microsoft tech support, perhaps more than I have. She also never had trouble reaching a real person. (She did have a bit of trouble trying to reach someone who really knew enough about the advanced features of Word to help her with her problem, but that's a different issue.) Jim jmann@es.stratus.com
dleach@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Leach) (08/24/90)
In article <1990Aug24.115708.5428@sisd.kodak.com> jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) writes: >number and can not get to talk to ANY technical support people >period. She just says no. Call Microsoft Online. > I have had the same problem. -- David Leach disclaimer: "I speak for no one . . . just ask my wife!"
medici@dorm.rutgers.edu (Mark Medici) (08/24/90)
jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) writes: >In various groups on the net I see references to developers talking >with Microsoft about upgrades/support/questions etc.. My question >is: How did you do it? I've called my so called 'Corporate Accounts' >number and can not get to talk to ANY technical support people >period. She just says no. Call Microsoft Online. Jeff, try calling the Microsoft Technical Support number (206/454-2030) instead of the toll-free Corporate Accounts number. CorpAccts is set-up to handle sale information and related customer support issues, not technical support. Other than having to spend a very long time on hold waiting to get to a tech, I've had no other problems. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Medici/SysProg3 * Rutgers University/CCIS * medici@elbereth.rutgers.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
robinson@ug.cs.dal.ca (John Robinson) (08/25/90)
In article <1990Aug24.115708.5428@sisd.kodak.com> jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) writes: >In various groups on the net I see references to developers talking >with Microsoft about upgrades/support/questions etc.. My question >is: How did you do it? I've called my so called 'Corporate Accounts' >number and can not get to talk to ANY technical support people >period. She just says no. Call Microsoft Online. > >I can't believe this. My company has spent tens or hundreds of >thousands of dollars on these people's software and I can not >get through to one technical support chap (or chapette'). >I have questions delving deep into the bowels of Windows 3.0 >(device drivers etc...) that require INTERACTIVE communication >not EMail! How do you get through to these people? > >I'm getting frustrated enough that I'm just about ready to recommend >on our corporate network that no MS software be purchased unless >there is no other choice (which is rarely the case). How do >you get to talk to real voices at Microsoft? I have long wondered how Microsoft does it. How do they manage to put out software which is usually full of bugs in the first .0 release and then provide little or no real support for the product and STILL manage to make a profit? It isn't as though anyone, least of all me, expects flawless bug free code. But either code that works, or people actively helping one fix problems with non-working code would be quite refreshing. What boggles my mind is not that they do it but that they MAKE MONEY at it. LOTS of money. It makes one wonder. > >-- >Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company .....uunet!atexnet!kodak!sisd!jdg >(716)-726-0084 >Eastman Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine >not theirs. John Robinson robinson@cs.dal.ac
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (08/27/90)
> jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) writes: >> In various groups on the net I see references to developers talking with >> Microsoft about upgrades/support/questions etc. ^^^^^^^^^^ >> I can't believe this. My company has spent tens or hundreds of >> thousands of dollars on these people's software and I can not >> get through to one technical support chap (or chapette'). Jeff appears to be talking about the lack of support for the Windows SDK, or possibly the OS/2 SDK. Support for those products is only available using the Microsoft Online ($$$$), or sometimes through the Net. :) John Robinson <robinson@ug.cs.dal.ca> writes: > I have long wondered how Microsoft does it. How do they manage to put > out software which is usually full of bugs in the first .0 release and > then provide little or no real support for the product and STILL manage > to make a profit? ...and then John generalizes this to all Microsoft products! Let's get it straight, there is free (non toll free) support available for all Microsoft applications and languages at (206) 454-2030. Only the SDKs (and maybe DOS?) are not supported. Second, as to their products being "full of bugs in the first .0 release"... I have Windows 3.0, Word for Windows 1.0 and Excel 2.0 --- all first releases, and all remarkably bug-free. Certainly more bug-free than, say, Lotus 1-2-3 3.0, which crashes here regularly (we have re-installed 2.01 for those who don't want to take chances). [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) (08/28/90)
On the other hand, if you discover a bug in a Microsoft product, all technical support will do is say "Yes, that's a bug". They will not: 1) Give patches to fix that bug. 2) Give temporary updates so that you don't have to wait to the next release! 3) EVEN GIVE KNOWN BUG LISTS!!! 4) Give any indication as to when updates are coming to fix known bugs. All this for products (MSC 6.0) that cost many hundreds of dollars. I know of no larger company that would do this. Sun, DEC, DG all publish bug lists of their products. MS expects the users to just sit with useless products until they release 6.1, which we will no doubt have to pay for. This especially comes up when there are bad code generated (i.e. code that crashes when run. I've found one and am terrified that there are other cases that Microsoft knows about but won't report. This is, of course, unacceptable for producing commercial products. If I release my companies product and it crashes mysteriously, telling customers it's a compiler bug is *not* going to cut it, and Microsoft obstructing efforts to avoid this is unappreciated. Tom West tomwest@gpu.utcs.utoronto.edu or west@turing.toronto.edu
bfag@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meneldur) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug27.132321.24161@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes: > > On the other hand, if you discover a bug in a Microsoft product, all technical >support will do is say "Yes, that's a bug". They will not: > >1) Give patches to fix that bug. >2) Give temporary updates so that you don't have to wait to the next release! >3) EVEN GIVE KNOWN BUG LISTS!!! >4) Give any indication as to when updates are coming to fix known bugs. > I can't say that I've called MS technical support all that often, though I did find them quite helpful when I was trying to install a previous version of Windows on a Zenith AT -- installation was impossible using Zenith's version of MS-DOS 3.1. I do hate the long distance calls, however, and the longer holds. I HAVE found some of their technical help on the Microsoft Forums on Compu$erve to be VERY helpful. This is especially true with the crew that monitors Word for Windows. They have been very prompt in answering questions and providing suggestions for circumventing recognized problems. (Alas, that I cannot say the same for the Excel group.) As for bug lists, the Microsoft database, also on Compu$erve and (I think) GENIE, does pretty well in that regard. I understand that it is the same database as is used by the technicians whom you call. I know, I know...this doesn't help a heck of a lot if you do not subscribe to either of these information services, but if you DO, it is definitely worth a look. Bill Faggart Dept. of Geol. Sci. Univ. of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug27.132321.24161@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes: | | On the other hand, if you discover a bug in a Microsoft product, all technical |support will do is say "Yes, that's a bug". They will not: | |1) Give patches to fix that bug. This is not always true. I ran into a bug with Word 5.0 and Sun's PC-NFS and MS sent me a floppy with a patch on it. PC Week says there are bugs in C 6.0 and MS is coming out with 6.1. I think what you're supposed to do in the meantime is turn off the optimizations. Did you suppose that maybe the bugs are too serious to simply patch? -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick ) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug27.132321.24161@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes: > > On the other hand, if you discover a bug in a Microsoft product, all technical >support will do is say "Yes, that's a bug". They will not: > >1) Give patches to fix that bug. >2) Give temporary updates so that you don't have to wait to the next release! >3) EVEN GIVE KNOWN BUG LISTS!!! >4) Give any indication as to when updates are coming to fix known bugs. > Once upon a time I was hired to write some comm software in QuickBASIC 4.0 I ran into a problem where I would occasionally get noise. (This was to operate in a metal plating facility where RFI was not uncommon) QuickBASIC's response to a comm error was to consider the comm port as an invalid device and ERASE the UART base address from the BIOS data area. It took me SEVERAL months to get Micorsoft to admit that it was their bug (meanwhile I am loosing hair and getting gray over the whole matter). When they finally admited it was their bug I was furnished with QuickBASIC 4.00(b) which fixed this. I appreciated the "upgrade", but, on the other hand, I am sure SOMEBODY within Microsoft knew of this and could have, at least, told me "We know, and we're working on it." Or, at a bare minimum, "This is what's happening: xxxxxxxx". Instead it took some digging around to determine what was acutally happening. (argh!) [Soap Box: On] It seems to me that a language vendor should be supportive of their users. Their developers are their bread and butter, and should, at least, be given the courtesy of telling them they're code is not broken. [Soap Box: Off] My $.02 ... Steve -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- steve.resnick@f105.n143.z1@FIDONET.ORG #include<std_disclaimer.h> Flames, grammar errors, spelling errrors >/dev/nul ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gordon Hlavenka) (08/29/90)
>Second, as to their products being "full of bugs in the first .0 release"... >I have Windows 3.0, Word for Windows 1.0 and Excel 2.0 --- all first >releases, >and all remarkably bug-free. Certainly more bug-free than, say, Lotus 1-2-3 >3.0, which crashes here regularly (we have re-installed 2.01 for those who >don't want to take chances). I'm running Windows 3.0 (experimentally) here, and other than the fact that it crashes almost hourly and has munched a valuable database file (fortunately backed up...) I would say that it's pretty bug-free. >[ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] ----------------------------------------------------- Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us
tat@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com (Tom Thackrey) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug25.000547.5258@ug.cs.dal.ca> robinson@ug.cs.dal.ca (John Robinson) writes: >In article <1990Aug24.115708.5428@sisd.kodak.com> jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) writes: >>In various groups on the net I see references to developers talking >>with Microsoft about upgrades/support/questions etc.. My question >>is: How did you do it? I've called my so called 'Corporate Accounts' >>number and can not get to talk to ANY technical support people >>period. She just says no. Call Microsoft Online. >I have long wondered how Microsoft does it. How do they manage to put >out software which is usually full of bugs in the first .0 release and I don't know who you are calling at MS, but my experience is far different. First, call (206) 454-2030 for technical support, the marketing numbers wont work. Second, be prepared to wait and be routed by punching the keys on your phone. It's not like you're their only customer, but it's not too tough. Recently I had a problem with a windows 2 app which got a file not found message under windows 3. I called the tech support number and got a message that they were in a meeting until x o'clock. I called later and was routed to a HUMAN who decided that my question was beyond his knowledge and routed me to an answering machine for the windows SDK support folks. I left a message and another HUMAN called back in about an hour. In fact, he called my home and when I wasn't there he asked for my work number and called me here. We talked about the problem and he didn't have an answer, but he gave me several suggestions to try. About an hour later he called again. He'd talked to someone else and had another suggestion. When I got a chance to try his suggestions, he had indeed solved the problem. I would like the support people to be available instantly 24 hours a day, but that's what Online is for and the price is appropriate. For free support I think MS does Ok. I occasionally get frustrated by the long waits to get through, but the rest of their support is pretty good. -- Tom Thackrey sun!amdahl!tat00 [ The opinions expressed herin are mine alone. ]
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (08/29/90)
In article <9121@ur-cc.UUCP> bfag@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meneldur) writes: >As for bug lists, the Microsoft database, also on Compu$erve and (I think) >GENIE, does pretty well in that regard. I understand that it is the same >database as is used by the technicians whom you call. Would anyone happen to know the voice phone number for Genie? We have an account on there and the guy who's account it is remembers his password but not his user ID (not a rare things in a world where ID's are numbers). -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) (08/29/90)
From article <1990Aug24.115708.5428@sisd.kodak.com>, by jdg@sisd.kodak.com (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST): > (device drivers etc...) that require INTERACTIVE communication > not EMail! How do you get through to these people? > The answer to your question is quite simple. Microsoft CHARGES for online help in the form of MICROSOFT ONLINE. The first thing they will want to know is your account number of you credit card number. I make no comments one way or the other just let the net flamage make my comments. Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (08/30/90)
In article <9121@ur-cc.UUCP> bfag@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meneldur) writes: > >As for bug lists, the Microsoft database, also on Compu$erve and (I think) >GENIE, does pretty well in that regard. I understand that it is the same >database as is used by the technicians whom you call. Do you know the forum name, library number, and file name? To all the CIS haters: Compuserve is quite cheap to use if you don't spend all your time searching for what you want, and use Tapcis or Autosig. Duncan Murdoch dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu
pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug28.195832.1853@chinet.chi.il.us> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) writes: =In article <9121@ur-cc.UUCP> bfag@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meneldur) writes: =>As for bug lists, the Microsoft database, also on Compu$erve and (I think) =>GENIE, does pretty well in that regard. I understand that it is the same =>database as is used by the technicians whom you call. = =Would anyone happen to know the voice phone number for Genie? We have an =account on there and the guy who's account it is remembers his password =but not his user ID (not a rare things in a world where ID's are numbers). GEnie user IDs are not numbers! Let him try his name as his ID. Pete -- Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91
ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug30.222714.12127@mccc.uucp> pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) writes: #In article <1990Aug28.195832.1853@chinet.chi.il.us> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) writes: #=In article <9121@ur-cc.UUCP> bfag@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meneldur) writes: #= #GEnie user IDs are not numbers! Let him try his name as his ID. # GEnie ID's are a combination of letters and numbers. Mine is something like XTX12345, but I can't remember mine off the top of my head, either. In fact, I put it on a macro key, so I never have to remember it. -- Al Shing (ashing@cac.washington.edu)
west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) (09/01/90)
In article <9121@ur-cc.UUCP> bfag@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Meneldur) writes: >As for bug lists, the Microsoft database, also on Compu$erve and (I think) >GENIE, does pretty well in that regard. I understand that it is the same >database as is used by the technicians whom you call. If they publish their bug lists (Om my god, people will know that Microsoft C 6.0 has bugs in it), why the hell won't they gives these out in any way to people phoning for technical support. I had figured that it was marketing droids who figured it was better to put the screws to the people who had bought the thing, rather than admit publicly that bugs existed. Now I found out that even that excuse isn't valid. What the hell is going on? Why can't MS distribute buglists for their compilers? WHY DOESN'T TECH SUPPORT EVEN TELL PEOPLE THAT THESE LISTS EXIST ON COMMERCIAL SERVICES??? Tom West west@turing.toronto.edu Can anyone tell me how many bugs cause MSC to generate bad code (rather than break the compiler)? I've bought 6.0, have found one code generation bug through pure luck and am petrified that I am going to distribute another code generation bug that I haven't found in a commercial product. For people's information: Bug 1 : If you are optimizing with -Oe (register optimization), do *NOT* have any register variables in your program. The manual says it ignores them but it lies. In fact, when using FP, it will generate bad code that eventually overflows the FP stack after many passes, possibly well away from the bad code. Removing the keyword 'register' from the program seems to solve the problem. Bug 2 : The following function will generate fatal error C1001, compiler file @(#)emit.c:1.115', line 524 Contact Microsoft Product Support Services (who will tell you that yes, it's a bug) when compiling with cl -c -Alfu -Od -Gsr file.c extern double g (void); double f () { return (g ()); } The two bugs I have found are:
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (09/06/90)
In article <1990Aug31.142549.21662@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes:
<I've bought 6.0, have found one code generation bug
<through pure luck and am petrified that I am going to distribute another
<code generation bug that I haven't found in a commercial product.
You need a test suite for your product. If your livlihood depends on it,
or lives do, you must test your product thoroughly, as you are responsible
for it, not the tool vendors.jfbruno@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John Bruno) (09/06/90)
In article <2684@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes: >In article <1990Aug31.142549.21662@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes: ><I've bought 6.0, have found one code generation bug ><through pure luck and am petrified that I am going to distribute another ><code generation bug that I haven't found in a commercial product. > >You need a test suite for your product. If your livlihood depends on it, >or lives do, you must test your product thoroughly, as you are responsible >for it, not the tool vendors. Are you saying that Microsoft is exempt from this rule? I would think a company that big would have a "test suite", right? But then again, their livelihood isn't at stake, since everyone will buy their products, simply because they're Microsoft. ---jb
bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) (09/07/90)
In article <2684@dataio.Data-IO.COM>, bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes: > In article <1990Aug31.142549.21662@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes: > <I've bought 6.0, have found one code generation bug > <through pure luck and am petrified that I am going to distribute another > <code generation bug that I haven't found in a commercial product. > > You need a test suite for your product. If your livlihood depends on it, > or lives do, you must test your product thoroughly, as you are responsible > for it, not the tool vendors. To some extent I agree with this sentiment (that you need a test suite for a commercial product), but I think you are putting too much confidence in what a test suite can find. It isn't reasonable to think that a test suite can find all possible bugs - by definition a test suite is finite, and many sorts of software can be subjected to a countably infinite number of possible inputs. You may also run into situations where the generation of the test suite runs into the same sorts of tool-related bugs that the product ran into; in the limit you would have to have a complete test suite for all the software and hardware that you were using. This can be very difficult to put together (_really_ good test suites are non- trivial to generate). Along this line, consider the number of problems that Intel had with early versions of their 386 and 486 chips, and we can be sure that they had done lots of testing of their chips before they shipped. But in the case of the 486, it wasn't until later that some of the problems were found - when Compaq found some of their diagnostics didn't always work properly! I think the best approach is to attack the problem from many different angles, including test suites, proofs, and field testing with users. (Users can often think of things to try that none of the product or test suite developers think of, so they never make it into the test suite). You'd certainly want to know if anyone _else_ had found that one of the tools you were using was suspect, since (as noted above) it can be difficult to verify that they work in all possible cases. If you're trying to build a reliable product I think you'd want to take anything you can get - Bruce C. Wright
bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) (09/11/90)
In article <4053@rtifs1.UUCP> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes: <In article <2684@dataio.Data-IO.COM>, bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes: << You need a test suite for your product. <To some extent I agree with this sentiment (that you need a test <suite for a commercial product), but I think you are putting too <much confidence in what a test suite can find. It isn't reasonable <to think that a test suite can find all possible bugs - by definition <a test suite is finite, and many sorts of software can be subjected <to a countably infinite number of possible inputs. Quite true. But it also isn't reasonable to expect that the compiler or other tools you are using have zero bugs either. I've been involved in several major projects. At my insistence, the ones without test suites got them developed. The idea was to create a test suite that could be run automatically. Once the system was in place, whenever a bug got fixed or a new feature added, a test for it was added to the suite. One project used a coverage analyzer to verify that the test suite executed *every* line of code in the program. (We discovered a lot of dead code this way, and removed it!) Not coincidentally, this turned out to be the most bug-free major project I've ever been familiar with (6 people, 60,000 lines of code). The product has been maintained and sold for 6 years now, and that old test suite proves its value with every new release. I've heard all the arguments about why a test suite could not be done for a particular project. After doing it anyway, nearly all those involved conceded that the total time spent on a project was *reduced* by having the test suite, and the reliability of the product was greatly increased. Test suites are as imperfect as anything else. But they do greatly improve software quality and significantly reduce software maintenance costs. P.S. I regard the test suite for the Zortech compiler as one of the most valuable assets we have...
jonka@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan KAGLE) (09/12/90)
In article <1990Sep6.032621.7506@rodan.acs.syr.edu> jfbruno@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John Bruno) writes: |In article <2684@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes: |>In article <1990Aug31.142549.21662@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> west@turing.toronto.edu (Tom West) writes: |><I've bought 6.0, have found one code generation bug |><through pure luck and am petrified that I am going to distribute another |><code generation bug that I haven't found in a commercial product. |> |>You need a test suite for your product. If your livlihood depends on it, |>or lives do, you must test your product thoroughly, as you are responsible |>for it, not the tool vendors. | |Are you saying that Microsoft is exempt from this rule? I would think a |company that big would have a "test suite", right? But then again, their |livelihood isn't at stake, since everyone will buy their products, simply |because they're Microsoft. On a product as complex as C 6.0, you must expect that _some_ bugs will slip though the cracks. You must remember that there are about a dozen megabytes of executables, libraries, and hypertext files that ship with the C 6.0 development systems. There is a tremendous amount of new material in the C 6.0 package, from inline assembly to the Programmer's WorkBench. C 6.0 is the most rigorously tested language product in Microsoft (and probably microcomputer) history. Microsoft Languages has a large, experienced testing department that ran tens of thousands of hours of automated test suites on the C 6.0 compiler and related utilities. The high compatibility and relatively _few_ (for a new compiler) fatal errors is testament to the quality of our testing department. -Jonathan DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for Microsoft Corporation. Sometimes I don't even speak for myself!
a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) (09/14/90)
To give credit where credit is due: I recently posted an agonized query about my problems in trying to get Word for Windows to correctly display symbol fonts. The message was read by Ingrid Tenggren at Microsoft, who chased around Microsoft looking for an answer. The query eventually got to Brand Thorpe in the WfW section, who mailed me a procedure for installing symbol fonts and posted it to the net. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada a752@mindlink.UUCP
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (09/14/90)
In article <57328@microsoft.UUCP> jonka@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan KAGLE) writes: >C 6.0 is the most rigorously tested language product in Microsoft (and probably >microcomputer) history. Microsoft Languages has a large, experienced testing >department that ran tens of thousands of hours of automated test suites on the >C 6.0 compiler and related utilities. The high compatibility and relatively >_few_ (for a new compiler) fatal errors is testament to the quality of our >testing department. Welcome to NewSpeak. Only Microsoft could deliver a product with a version number of 6.0 and refer to it as a new product. At what version level does it become mature? The mind boggles. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | MS-DOS: The Andrew Dice Clay West Hill, Ontario, Canada | of operating systems. + 416 281 6094 |
gt3070b@prism.gatech.EDU (Jeff Watkins) (09/15/90)
I find what I am about to say stunning in light of my past attitude toward MS.. While in the process of writing a Device driver for windows, I decided that in order for me to get my questions answered it would be best if I got a handle on some actual MS developers. So I convinced my boss to subscribe to MS Online. It is an overpriced developers BBS that requires you to use its own software (which isn't too bad for a _DOS_ app). I did get my questions handled and I was able to complete the driver. THIS IS NOT THE STUNNING BIT! THIS IS THE STUNNING BIT: today in my mail I received a small envelope. I opened said envelope to find a thank you card. Upon opening this card, I read the following: Thank you (cover) ... for letting us be of service to you. Our staff is eager to earn your continued confidence and satisfaction. Please feel free to contact me whenever I can be of assistance. I've enclosed my card for your convenience. Once again, thank you! Microsoft Making it all make sense. Now, you may say, "FOR $800, they damn well better send you a thank you note!" Yes, this may be true. BUT how many other companies thank you for purchasing their product? whatever the price? Microsoft, I appologize for thinking you were a company without a heart. It may not often appear, but somewhere in your corporate structure so far removed from where you started, it still exists. feel free to continue to rail against Microsoft all you want. I will not join you! jeff Watkins -- Jeff Watkins gt3070b@prism.gatech.edu Convergent Media Systems (404) 315-0105 voice (404) 315-0231 data "I speak for no-one. AND NO-ONE SPEAKS FOR ME... oh, yes, _dear_...I gotta go..."