[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: MS 6.0 Bugs and Build-dates (Thanks!)



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links



Let me add my $0.o2 worth.

Equis is heading the way Wordstar did.  Wordstar was the first full
service/complete wordprocessor program.  It was so popular that they did no
R & D.  They began to lose out when Wordperfect came out, and when they
tried to come out with a windows version, it was a clunker, with fewer
features than the old DOS version. No one hears of wordstar anymore.

Equis' denying that their are any bugs is the height of stupidity and poor
public relations.  Intel tried this a few years ago with the bugs in the
early Pentiums. As users we have more options about our software than we
have about the microprocessors in our computers.

Equis is making similar mistakes with Metastock.  V 6.0 still uses the same
clunky file system that was used in the beginning.  Supercharts and other
programs can read Metastock files (at least up to V 5.11), without the 255
max limitation.

Equis does not listen to its customers, it doesn't fix up its program so
that it is easier to fix bugs, the print function for explorations, in V
5.11 belongs in pre-kindergarden computer science.  Microsoft provides  a
site where we can download fixes and work arounds. Thier programs are
intrinsically more complicated than Metastock.

Unless Equis makes some fairly drastic changes in thier attitudes and
program, they will lose customers as competators come onto the market.
Supercharts has its problems (very poor documentation, no tech suport), WOW
will be a serious rival as soon as they replace their present buggy
program.  Equis is reactive instead of pro-active.  Equis should scrap the
present V 6. and replace it with a new program that incorporates the
criticisms that have beeen raised on this listserver, and it must be
backward compatable.

Lionel Issen


At 06:59 AM 7/16/97 GMT, Guy Gordon wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jul 1997 08:08:56 -0600, Equis Support wrote:
>
>>As to posting "patches" ON THE WEB SITE.  We do not do that because the
>>way MetaStock is compiled, it would be nearly impossible.  Most of the
>>functionality is in the exe itself.  If you have a problem, contact us
>>in support and if it turns out to be a "bug" that has been fixed, or a
>>"bug" at all, we will take care of you.  We always have and we always
>>will.
>
>You are not listening to us!
>
>I don't *want* to have to find a bug before you will "take care of
>me".   What if I don't notice the bug?  Does that make it OK for it to
>be there?  
>
>What if that bug costs me money, because I didn't notice it, and
>therefore you didn't "take care of me"?
>
>Why should every one of us users have to go through the frustration of
>identifying each of your bugs, and then contacting you at support,
>just to find out that you knew about it all along?  
>
>Let me tell you where Equis is heading.  Did you ever hear of
>WordPerfect Corp?  They had the same policy on bug fixes.  Do you know
>where they are now?  Do you know how many of their original employees
>still have those jobs?
>
>You are   N O T    L I S T E N I N G    to your CUSTOMERS!
>
>Why do I feel I have to yell to get your attention?  Don't think its
>just me.  Many others on this list have expressed the same
>frustration.
>
>Your customers want bug fixes on the web.  Don't tell me its "nearly
>impossible".  Microsoft does it.  Netscape Does it.  Symantec does it.
>Hell, even *I* do it.  There is nothing impossible about posting a 3Mb
>MSWIN.EXE on the web in a ZIP file.
>
>Stop being negative and do something POSITIVE about it.  Find a way to
>do it.  If MetaStock really can't be updated on the web because of the
>way it is compiled, FIX IT SO IT CAN BE.  If *you* don't know how,
>post this message in the hall, and maybe someone else at Equis will
>figure it out.  Find out how other companies do it.  Hire a consultant
>to do it.  BUT DO IT.
>
>Why don't you post your data formats on your web page?  Don't you
>understand that add-on products and utilities would make MetaStock
>MORE VALUABLE to your customers?   It's the same problem:  it wouldn't
>add directly to the Equis bottom line, and you just don't care about
>your customers.
>
>
>
>