|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Count me in as a sufferer too!
George.
At 21:05 10/02/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Feb 10, 2000
>Bill,
>
>Attached is a copy of the letter that I personally wrote to you
>informing MS that their 6.52 EOD program had a serious printing problem.
>
>The majority of the MS users that have encountered this problem have
>since responded to your Dec 1st 1999 memo.
>
>As of Feb the 10th 2000, I have not had the courtesy of receiving any
>written response from MS acknowledging the serious 6.52 EOD printing
>problem and how MS proposed to resolve it.
>
>In addition, MS is forecasting to release 7.0 EOD update while existing
>6.52 users stew in the 6.52 printing mess.
>
>When does MS begin to function as a responsible software supplier and
>respond to this serious problem. The nonresolution of this problem has
>demonstrated MS's lack of consumer follow up..
>Why not acknowledge the problem?
>
>If 7.0 is the solution to the problem; then I strongly recommend that
>all 6.52 paid upgrade users be given a rebate to be applied to 7.0. I
>also suggest that all 6.52 users be given a rebate for the tremendous
>amount of aggravation and inconvenience everyone encountered when they
>upgraded to 6.52.
>
>When will MS becomes a responsible software supplier and resolve these
>glaring software flaws?
>
>Surveys with no follow up is a joke and I seriously question MS
>corporate integrity.
>
>Give me a straight answer and tell me when will MS resolve the 6.52
>software printing problems?
>
>Attachment:
>Subject: Re: Printing Charts with version 6.52
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:16:20 -0800
> From: "Lino A. Alessi" <linoaalessi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Bill Forman <wforman@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: Metastock User Group <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>November 29, 1999
>Bill,
>
>I am deeply disturbed by the lack of adequate response I have seen from
>Equis during the past 2 weeks concerning the obvious printing problems
>that MS 6.52 demonstrates.
>
>I also have had the same 6.52 printing problems and I would like to
>express to the group how a professional, reputable and reliable company
>tries to resolve an obvious problem.
>
>Since I purchased the 6.52 upgrade in September, I have gone back to the
>
>Xerox company concerning the Xerox 8C printer. Xerox quickly responded
>and tried to determine whether their printer was at fault. Xerox even
>replaced my 8C printer with the Xerox DucoPrint 11C. Xerox has gone the
>
>extra mile and has responded in a very reputable manner and never during
>
>our search for a resolution did Xerox stonewall the problem.
>
>Living in Silicon Valley allows me to call many software companies in
>the valley to explain to them what MS 6.52 software problems I am
>confronting. Bill, the problem is in MS 6.52, and MS has not responded
>to this glaring problem in a reputable and honest fashion. The
>difference in response between Xerox and MS has been amazing. As a
>business owner, I am bewildered over what the group writes about Reuters
>
>your parent company- is their philosophy and lack of reliability in
>supplying consistant data influencing Equis in their business practices?
>
>How can a reputable and reliable company not respond or acknowledge such
>
>an obvious and glaring problem in their software? The credibility of
>Equis is at stake. Please, no more 6.52 patch fiascos.
>
>I want to know when will Equis resolve the 6.52 printing problem?
>
>Sincerely,
>Lino Alessi
>
>
|