bob@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU (Bob Parks) (02/28/90)
I never never do this (unlike Phil Miller) but somehow this says something about the Institute (which I do not like to hear). Infoworld, 2-26-90 page 59 (excuse the typos please) "Sas Institute once again declined to have us review SAS/PC (we evaluated the package in our Sept. 1, 1986, roundup, but they did not participate in the 1988 comparison). SAS/PC is not reviewed because the company insisted on direct contact with the reviewer during the review process. The vendor claimed that the degree of personal contact it has with its users is so high that without this contact, our review could not represent the product fairly. InfoWorld's policy is to maintain reviewer anonymity to ensure that the rreviewer receives the same treatment as a typical buyer would, and we also prefer to enusre our Review Board members are not lobbied by vendors during the review process. Our reviewer, who is experienced with SAS products on multiple platforms, is fully able to independently cand competently review the package. Having reached this impasse, SAS declined to participate." Enough said. I wonder whether they will loose sales over this and will realise that they should loose sales over this. I wonder how well WordPerfect would have done in the market with this kind of attitude (retorical wonder). SYSTAT/SYGRAPH appeared to be the review's choice, out of MINITAB, STATGRAPHICS and SPSS/PC+ (loser due to cost of the separate packages). Bob
R1SCM@AKRONVM.BITNET (Dr. Steven C. Myers) (03/01/90)
On Wed, 28 Feb 90 08:54:57 CDT Bob Parks said: >I never never do this (unlike Phil Miller) but somehow this says something >about the Institute (which I do not like to hear). I too do not like to hear this and I feel compelled to add my reasons. My thanks to Bob Hamer and Bob Parks for this information, as I never read Infoworld. I have used SAS since the manual was mimeo and less than .5" thick. I have taught graduate students to use SAS as econometricians, many who are today employed in businesses using the SAS product for their analysis. Some of my students have had a direct impact on which software package their business would use and have all (most?) chosen SAS. I have never "NEVER" had personal contact with SAS Institute and suspect that I never will. Still I find that SAS is understandable and useful for my students (and of course for myself) without a large amount of instruction on my part or on the part of my university. Understand, that I am training economic analysts, not SAS programmers, so I devote very little time, and almost no class time, to teaching SAS. Still, for over 10 years the graduate students get the work done. Why then does SAS Institute have the nerve, the gall, to insist that "direct personal contact with the reviewer" is necessary? Are they unhappy with prior reviews? Are they trying to be something they aren't? SAS is not a program for those with limited resources, limited means, and limited needs. There are a number of "better" programs for the casual user who needs only a few summaries of data here and there. For the serious econometrician, I feel that SAS is _one_ of the programs in which the user must be proficient. Moreover, for data management and minipulation, it can't be beat. SAS is a great product -- don't hide from the public! Bob Parks anticipates a loss of sales. I don't know about that, but I do know that I do not appreciate having a vendor that is so restrictive. Steven C. Myers Department of Economics The University of Akron Akron, OH 44325-1908 >------------------ most of the original message ------------------ >Infoworld, 2-26-90 page 59 (excuse the typos please) > >"Sas Institute once again declined to have us review SAS/PC (we evaluated the >package in our Sept. 1, 1986, roundup, but they did not participate in the >1988 comparison). SAS/PC is not reviewed because the company insisted on >direct contact with the reviewer during the review process. The vendor >claimed that the degree of personal contact it has with its users is so high >that without this contact, our review could not represent the product fairly. >InfoWorld's policy is to maintain reviewer anonymity to ensure that the >rreviewer receives the same treatment as a typical buyer would, and we also >prefer to enusre our Review Board members are not lobbied by vendors during >the review process. Our reviewer, who is experienced with SAS products on >multiple platforms, is fully able to independently cand competently review the >package. Having reached this impasse, SAS declined to participate." > >Enough said. I wonder whether they will loose sales over this and will >realise that they should loose sales over this. I wonder how well WordPerfect >would have done in the market with this kind of attitude (retorical wonder). > >SYSTAT/SYGRAPH appeared to be the review's choice, out of MINITAB, >STATGRAPHICS and SPSS/PC+ (loser due to cost of the separate packages). > >Bob