Technical support Ethical behaviour??? 8

[PalmStrike]

Hi all, i am just curious to peoples opinion about chargeable technical support from the big software providers.

Namely... actually, no names lets keep this wide.

I personally go on the net a lot to try and find answers to problems, as a lot of you will have noticed (a big thankyou to anyone who has answered any of my threads in the past)

But sometimes, the answer is so elusive for so simple a problem. And more often than not, it is an answer people don't think of giving because it is so obvious that you assume that has already been looked at.

I personnaly resent sending more money to a big corporation for a three minute phone call (well 20 minute phone call, 17 mins to get to the techy). Maybe it is just the anarchist in me, but there are a lot of modest people out there that are so willing to help, it is a shame we are being held to ransome by big corporations.

I am willing to accept that I might be missing the point.
Gis an opinion.

 

[Tarwn]

So your saying that rather than use the existing OS they should reinvent it from scratch each time?

Could you show me an example of any OS that is reinvented from scratch each time?

How easy is a Mac upgrade? Well, actually ignore that one, you just buy a new machine
How easy is a Linux upgrade?
Ever done a Solaris upgrade?
VMS?

Reuse is one of the largest principles of Software Engineering. Creating components that can be reused and reusing older code are both time and money savers in the long run.

Just because a product is based on a previous product doesn't mean that it is exactly the same. In fact, the way a company decides it is a new version rather than a new build of a previous version is by the amount that has changed. Due to the fact that things have changed, technical support than has to learn a whole new system (at some level above the people that just read the screen that is).

Honestly I prefer companies to reuse and upgrade older systems to provide us with newer systems, it cuts down on the number of errors that creep in because a good portion of the code has already been bug tested in the largest and most comprehensive laboratory ever, the consumer marketplace.

I don't see where your Microsoft Windows rant has any relevance on the topic at hand except for the minor "Also" paragraph you have tacked on at the end. I do however like the points brought up by Cdogg and CajunCenturion.

One minor issue I have with lionelhill's post (which may just be me reading it wrong), I don't think the washing machine company is going to care what kind of connection you have after they sell it. Sure there will be some type of limited return policy, but they aren't going to fix it for free to work with your existing water connection. If we are going to compare washing machines to software, it might be a better analogy to compare it like so:
Technical support at a washing machine company might give you advice on what kind of connection you will need, but they aren't going to explain the process of washing your clothes and how to maximize your efficiency during the process, much less explain the best soap mix or tell you exact results independant of what type of impurities you have in your water. They will describe their products in advertising, but will be sure to use words that are relative, because saying something is great cannot be disproven, but saying something will add exactly x washes to the life of your clothing is risking refund territory.

Software technical support will generally offer bug advice and fixes for free, but charge for problems you have using the product (that are not inherently the products fault).

In other words, the users pays for help with their ignorance and the company doesn't charge in the event that there is a problem with the actual product.

And now that I have amade a serious post in this discussion, I'm going to go to bed
-Tarwn ________________________________________________
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048

 

[lionelhill]

Tarwn,
thanks for comments. No, it is my fault, I made a bad example. I meant a missing part from within the washing machine, not a faulty connection to the outside world. My point was really that some (probably not many) software suppliers seem to think it is reasonable to sell a poorly tested product that doesn't actually work, and then expect the user to jump through hoops to find downloadable patches, pay for tech help lines etc., just to get what they've already paid for. That I consider unfair. Even free downloadable patches are a pain. Not everyone has a super-fast internet connection. Strangely there are some people in this world who still think it's reasonable to own a word-processing package but not have an internet connection! (I agree: why shouldn't they? And why shouldn't they expect the software to work as advertised, as supplied?).

Incidentally, anyone else out there had the experience of paying (30 UK pounds!) for something, unwrapping it, and finding that the actual main product advertised turns out to be shareware with a demand that if you want to use it for more than 30 days you need to pay again?

Actually, that's another point: I notice shops vary hugely in the expertise of their staff. Some have staff who know about the products they sell, and who are prepared to offer advice. Others don't care about anything beyond the price tag. If you've got a good software vendor, be nice to him/her.

 

[greyted]

lionelhill,
Yes, I have had the same experience as you, not as costly but very annoying as there is nothing to indicate that the product is shareware.
Agree with your comments regarding good vendors, indeed they should be treasured.

wolluf,
Agree with most of your comments, especially an OS being a big deal. It most certainly is to the purchaser and as I mentioned earlier should be fit for the purpose. That is where I have a problem as most OS have either a security or some other problem discovered long after they have been on sale to the public. I guess the argument is, was the vendor aware?

Tarwn,
It does not matter to me whether it is a new or upgraded OS, just want it to function as the vendor states it will. If as you say it cuts down on the number of errors, how come each new release has errors in it. No one person or product is perfect I know but for the money we pay I think we get poor service. Invariably it is guys on this type of forum who find these bugs get rubbished or ignored when they report them only for a fix to appear a few days/weeks later.

cdogg,
Question 1.
Agree with you.

Question 2.
Do not require support indefinately. A Google search is sufficient 99% of the time.

Question 3.
Disagree. Thought there were some places in the States where all of the EULA did not apply? I'm sure I came across an article on that subject. In fact some EULA's now advocate your registration details for 2nd or 3rd party use, if one does not agree then what? Worth reading the EULA to see the changes.

Question 4.
Your last sentance says it all for me.
"There's no free handouts and you should know what you're getting yourself into."
How on earth can you if you are a first time buyer of a computer or software? At least a few years ago you could borrow the manual that a friend had from his software purchase. I help a lot of older people with their PC's and software, some are very aware but equally others are not.
That is why this site and others like it are so valuable, you can learn an enormous amount just reading the many differing threads. That applies to the expert and novice I think.

 

[cdogg]

greyted

At least we're gaining some ground! I just want to reassure you that it is not my objective to convince you or anyone else on the points previously mentioned. My main concern is that we're able to divide the conversation into its relevant parts so that others can see the difference in opinion more clearly. Before it was very cluttered and hard to see how one point related to another.

Question 3:
- I'm no EULA expert, nor do I pretend to be. I'll leave this one up to any paralegals or licensed attorneys we may have out there in the audience.

Question 4:
- This issue can be quite sensitive to those who feel they are being ripped off or forced to spend more money than they prefer. Many in this group are unsatisfied for one reason or another. Maybe they bought a piece of software under the impression that it could work magic or do more than is stated in the documentation. Others might get their beef from the amount of work it takes to make it work the way they want it to.

Whatever the case, I agree with you if the bug in the software has to do with functionality. We all hate to buy and bring home software that just won't work either at all or in part. I can't disagree with one's animosity here.

However, there are cases where customers aren't happy simply because they don't understand how to make it work. The functionality is there, but the customer is having problems exploiting it properly. Such cases require training (as CajunCenturion mentioned earlier) which I strongly feel is NOT the responsibility of the vendor/manufacturer. Operating systems and Office applications are prime examples of this. That's where the 3rd party garage part of the car analogy makes sense. There are some "garages" out there making a living in this part of the industry. Surely that's not a bad thing!

Again just my 2¢. Thanks for the stimulating debate...



~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[PalmStrike]

I agree with skilflyer, but then i have a 30 year old italian motorbike which i have to fix, But I do have a shop with all the bits lined up luckily.

I think that it is fair enough if an operating system becomes "obsolete" unfortunately I don't like xp, it reminds me of play doe and Duplex, not really a patch on lego and Clay.

Mad town, I think you will find like with most cars and bikes, people will get hooked on an operating system if they think it works, and where there is a demand for it,you will still get peeps spewing out compatible stuff for it. And I also think that because software is so new in terms of the law, i think someone bloody strong minded ought to stand up and say this isn't working, I want my money back, and set it straight that software is like any other consumerable in that if it doesn't work, you shouldn't have to pay for it to be fixed. Unfortunately, the big software companies have the upper hand at the moment.

And if anyone was curious, i originally started this thread because of Satans own evil little backup empire "Veritas".

You have to pay them, because unlike microsoft, no one seems to know how it works.

 

[greyted]

PalmStrike,
A star for you for starting this thread.
Gave up on the company you mentioned, terrible attitude to me.

cdogg,
You are correct with your reply to Question 4, I have helped so many people who have purchased software that is not fit for their purpose. Some retailers seem to sell the most expensive product with no thought to customer requirement. On one occasion I helped a woman who had purchased a cd-writer having given all her computer details to the vendor. Of course it did not work and on inspection I discovered she had 28mb of memory when the cd-writer clearly stated on the enclosed literature that it required a minimum of 32mb. Having spoken to the sales assistant it was clear he was aware of this and hoped to make some more cash by selling extra memory or fitting the cd-writer himself.
As we mentioned earlier in this thread good software vendors should be treasured and recommended to newbies who can then get the correct information.

I agree with you that there are customers who do not understand how to make it work. Have trained some customers on very early versions of Paintshop Pro. Most people get very involved and are stimulated, young or old they seem eager to learn. Some think it is hard work and have no interest but with guidance I guess over 90% will have a try and achieve some satisfaction for their efforts. This is most rewarding.
We have a FoMoCo garage that supports cars over 20years of age, good service that!

Yes, this is an interesting debate.

 

[CajunCenturion]

PalmStrike - I agree with you in theory that --> i think someone bloody strong minded ought to stand up and say this isn't working, I want my money back.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the software vendor. I purchased your software. I opened it, and installed it on my machine. I made a backup copy of the media. I find a bug. Now I am going to stand up to you and ask for my money back. Knowing full well that I've already installed it on my machine, and reinstalled at any time for the backup copy of my media - are you going to give me my money back, or will you fix the bug.

If you give everyone their money back - you will go broke, and the rest of the world will be using your software from their backup copies.

That's why software companies do not, and probably never will refund your money. They will continue to fix the bug, if it is a bug.

Every piece of software has bugs. But if the software vendors allow the users to define what it or is not a bug, then everything they don't like about the software will be considered a bug. You have to have something concrete against which to compare the software to determine what is or is not a bug. That's why the published documentation and specification by the vendor come into play. Anything that the software does that is not consisent with published documentation can arguable be considered a bug. Anything else is a subjective judgement - your word against mine about which is supposed to be right. If the vendors do not have the ability to defend themselves against subjective bug claims, then all software vendors will eventually go out of business. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[PalmStrike]

Cajun,
I agree with you absolutely, that is where the point of this thread came from. I am new to IT, and if I could have stayed away i would, but it has an enthralling draw to it.

The point I am making is that there is no guarantee/warantee that comes with a software package, it is at your own risk/competence level. Yet some people choose not to know about IT, yet are being forced into as a matter of course, by the advancement of modern science, and I think that is questionable, as do many people I know. Computers are a great tool but I think the software companies have an obligation to account for IT illiterate people, it is not acceptable to say "if you don't want to learn about IT then that's your problem".

I have been practising and teaching chinese internal arts for health now for some 5 years, and my body is healthy and strong, where it was not before, but I can't say to people "because you won't take the time to do your practise, you can suffer the consequenses" this happens anyway, my point is that software companies (and I am not necessarily talking about M$ as someone pointed out earlier, for some of their products, particularly home ones, they will help you for 2 instances, so keep those product keys safe, they can be a life line) are saying just that which is very frustrating for people when they have been led to believe that computers are instantaneous.

As good as the car analogy is, there is the problem in that you don't have to take a test to sit at a computer. So as has been pointed out often here on this thread, it is perfectly reasonable to charge for your time to fix someone elses problem, but not if you are testing your product on them, which M$ do do (I don't know about other companies) so in this case it is like being a user, and a test bed, and having to pay for the privelidge. I was under the impression that formular 1 teams get paid huge amounts to test their cars.

This is a tricky one, maybe we could help Mr Blair by issuing Techy ID cards, and then go to war on the ignorant.(Just to be sure, that last sentance is a tongue in cheek Joke, before anyone gets offended)

Regards

Rob

 

[CajunCenturion]

--> The point I am making is that there is no guarantee/warantee that comes with a software package

My point is there should a guarantee. That guarantee is that the software will perform consistently to the published documentation and specifications. That provides the consumer with something upon which to base their decision to buy. When you buy a car, especially used, is it not prudent to have a qualified mechanic look it over first? Do you not use a agent/attorney when buying real estate? Do you get a second opinion before buying medical care? And don't the consultants always come at a price? When we don't know what we're getting into we seek expert opinions and the IT business shouldn't be view any differently. And the published documentation and standards provide the consultant with a baseline to make an intelligent recommendation.

Unfortunately, there are lots of con men selling themselves as IT consultants, but we'll save that for another thread.

Continuing with the car analogy. Suppose the car manufacturer advertised a car that would go from 0 to 60 to 5.2 seconds. If my car, after driving it, and not properly maintaining it, for two years no longer can perform to that spec, is it the manufacturers fault? No, you can't hold the vendor responsible for equipment that is not properly maintained. If I install some engine enhancement and the car no longer meets that spec is it the manufacturers fault? No, you can't hold the vendor responsibible if the "warranty seal is broke" as it were. If the car is five years old and can no longer meet that spec, is it the vendors responsibility to bring the car up to spec now? Again, I say no.

Some might now argue this is an invalid analogy because software doesn't degrade over time. The hardware might, but not the software, and that is a valid point. I'm hoping that you can gather from this analogy that the vendor has no control over the environment in which the software is used, and cannot be held accountable for that. That's what behind the shrink-wrap concept.

In perfect world ...... Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[MadTown]

This is turning into a real interesting thread.

Palm Strike, when you wrote

i think someone bloody strong minded ought to stand up and say this isn't working, I want my money back, and set it straight that software is like any other consumerable in that if it doesn't work, you shouldn't have to pay for it to be fixed. Unfortunately, the big software companies have the upper hand at the moment.

I remember reading awhile back in an airline magazine of recent trend in the US of people taking Microsoft and other software companies to small claims court to get their money back. The key being that no lawyers are involved in small claims so the big companies don't want to take the time to send somebody to these cases so they end up giving the refund.

I personally don't agree that software is like any other consumerable. In that if you return a TV you are pretty sure that the consumer didn't make a copy of it and still uses the copy at home.

cdogg my answer to your questions as someone who has recently started a a very small software company.

1. Yes software companies should offer free support for the first 60-90 days after a products release. my company for our cheap $50 product offers free tech support. With the other product we will belaunching that costs $3000 dollars will get 1 year free tech support with the possiblity to purchase extensions at the end of one year.

2. Software should be supported as long as there is a significant number of people using the version of a product. If 10% of the users are using version 2 of a software and version 5 is available then supporting version 2 shouldn't be a high priority. If a considerable number of people are still using the software there will be able out there who support it. A good example is the Commodore Amiga OS which there are still people who support and use.

3. The EULAs for software are on the most part fair. As you stated the main purpose of the EULA is to protect copyrights.


4. Most people who aren't technically inclined are the ones who are afraid to click buttons they don't understand and are the least likely to call technical support (Free or Paid) because they will feel stupid. odds are they are going to turn to a friend who knows computers. (I know, because in many cases I'm that friend. Have you ever been invited to a friends house only to get the "You know while you're here we have this new computer and ....&quot

I guess that was a lot of writing just to say yeah cdogg I aggree with you.


Ken

 

[PalmStrike]

Have a Star MadTown,

That is exactly what I would expect from a supplier, and the more software companies can take your lead the better.

The thing about new or exclusive software, is that surely the techy has to learn about it to, yes or no. But it seems that a lot of companies have played on this vagueness in the law in order to exploit the user. Hi Veritas.

And Cajun, that's it entirely. Maybe at some point there might actually be something put down to protect the rights of the user in all this, because at the moment there does not seem to be, I noticed this when I went into get an upgrade to XP pro for one of our computers (when the boss bought the home edition - DOH!) and the sales man after some prompting told me that it only worked on 2/3 of the machines upgrading from XP home edition, but that that was my risk and by the way, if the celophane is removed from the package, then you have accepted the software and no refunds. Well for £70 that is not a risk I am happy with, I want it to work. As it happened, I was in that 1/3 of ones that didn't work, but this is where M$ was most helpfull and got it going for me for free.

Considering that you can get in trouble for piracy, surely it should go both ways.

But then maybe i should turn to UNIX, and shut my gob.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I agree that certain protections need to be in place for the consumer.

But could you provide an answer to this question?
How do you know that person on the other end of the phone asking for technical support has legitimately purchased the software?

I'm all for the vendors to be help to a reasonable standard of ethical responsibility. But to do that, you also have to hold the user community to that same standard of ethical responsibility. Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[MadTown]

CajunCenturion,

How do you know that person on the other end of the phone asking for technical support has legitimately purchased the software?


Simple answer to your question is you don't when speaking to someone you ask for their name and registration code. The tech support person can then verify it through the registration database.

I've seen some different types of security measures that go further such as one company who would email you your registration code and would only activate the software on the date the code was emailed and another who had it programmed in such a way, that the name and registration code had to match for the program to work. Then there is the Microsoft approach of Activation.

All in All, software companies have to figure in a % of sales that will be lost. I'm sure when the big companies price their software they figure it will be used on two or three different computers and price it accordingly.

Ken

 

[Tarwn]

Two comments:
but this is where M$ was most helpfull and got it going for me for free
Hmm...so Tech support fixed the problem, for free, and this is proof of how they aren't backing their product...how?

A good example is the Commodore Amiga OS which there are still people who support and use.
The manufacturer still offers support? (I believe thats what we are discussing here, Technical support from the manufacturer. 3rd party support was offered as a solution above and discounted by someone)

I agree with CajunCenturion, in order to hold a manufacturer to a certain ethical level, the user must also be held tothat same ethical level. You cannot expect a manufacturer to treat you well when people turn around and make 5 copies of a piece of software for a friend, install it on several machines, install it and attempt to return it for a refund, download it an ISO and install it, etc.

Unfortunatly I don't think businesses will get any more ethical, we get a law to limit piracy and rather than use it to fight piracy they take advantage of all the (many many many) holes in it and start trying to shut down competition (DCMA). I think businesses have given up on being treated fairly by the consumer. A large percentage of the "problems" people call up and complain about end up being user problems, not software/computer problems, people outright steal a hefty percentage of their profits, people sue for their own stupidity/clumsiness, and people expect everything to be handed to them. Yes I think the companies have become unethical, and yes I think the consumer has become unethical, and no I don't think either side is right.
I guess I just don't like people

-Tarwn
________________________________________________
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048

 

[greyted]

Tarwn,
A very good point you and CajunCenturion make regarding the ethical responsibility of both manufacturer and end user, I agree. Often hear people complaining that music cd's suffer from the same problem of copying. Personally I think most people prefer an original manufactured cd be it music or software. Most of the unethical people are those who try to sell copied cd's as the genuine article when in fact they are forgeries being sold by criminals. These copies cause a lot of problems when people try to use them and they consequently blame the original manufacturer, so we all get angry and frustrated.
One practise that does annoy me is when I get called to help and discover that some customers have been sold OEM versions of software, especially prevalent with XP. I must admit that M$ have been most helpful on these occasions.
As was mentioned earlier in this thread, treasure the good software vendors. This is yet another pitfall for the IT beginner and even the more experienced amongst us have to be vigilant.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
We all like you Tarwn

MadTown,
Most of your points are in my opinion valid.
3.
If EULA's protect copyrights how come they don't work.

4.
Oh how right you are, this section of your post made me laugh. I have been round a friends this evening who asked for some help. A ten minute problem ended up being a two hour session and you are spot on, the exact words this guy used were, "I would feel stupid asking for help via the telephone." Brilliant.

Yes, I agree this is turning into a very interesting thread.

 

[PalmStrike]

Tarwin, Yup, point taken, about my free instance of support, but as I have pointed out a few times, my gripe is not actually with M$ (it's true thay are a big corporation and anti capitalists could argue that point alone) but with companies such as Vertas who have now stopped helping me, because I do not have the know how to send them the reports they need. So I still have expensive backup software fully paid up that DOES NOT WORK and to make it work, I have to pay Veritas. If you have seen my threads in the backup forum, you will see I am not just being lazy, I have researched all over to find the problem, and I have come to a dead end. This is the example I am talking about. So Here, even though i am willing to learn, I am being penalised for it.
Also
I think businesses have given up on being treated fairly by the consumer
I am not aware of this sort of ethic entering into big business in any shape or form. They are out to make money, which is fine, but there is an abuse of power going on I believe.

There is another abuse of power going on in the UK at the momeent, But I shall have to find a different forum for that.

I think ethical behaviour is also down to the individual, be it a single person or an institution, in that rarely is it mutual as a matter of course. Remember ethics is the want to behave in a respectable and respectfull way without compromising yourself in the meantime (well in my mind anyway).

 

[lionelhill]

Protecting copyright is important. Of course the manufacturer wants to be sure the user really is returning the product with a fair complaint that it doesn't work.

Maybe it's time to reinvent the dongle??

 

[CajunCenturion]

MadTown - People give away their registration codes every day. Software activation codes are no guarantee either. Registry sections can be copied, hard drives are replaced. Companies purchase software and the employees install it on their home machines, with all the proper licenses and registration codes. And when they call customer support, they are representatives of the company that purchased the software. And of course, vendors are asked to provide customer support to the holders of pirated copies of the software.

Although I cannot respond specifically to your situation with Vertas, I spent seven years in a product development and I can attest to the fact that there is an incredible amount of abuses being rendered against the vendor. I can also tell you that the software development company can put out a piece of software thats works on 9 out of 10 machines. One time, I spend two days on-site trying to fix our software which would run on this one client's network. Turned out their network cards were improperly configured. They also refused to pay because in their mind, our software didn't work so we had to fix it. They were not experiencing network problems before installing our software. Apparently no other software they were running was dependant upon the network being configured properly. It didn't matter that their hardware was improperly configured, or that their network administrator screwed up, the software wasn't working. Is their an abuse of power going on here? Who is taking advantage of whom?

Customer support costs money, and somebody is paying for every customer support call. Some times the vendor pays for it, some times the consumer pays for it. Some of it is built into the cost of the software, some of it comes from annual maintenance fees.

You are correct in that companies are out to make money. The company who is providing customer support needs to make money, so they don't want to incurr the expense, the company that renders the supports want to charge for the service, because they are paying the salary of the person providing the support. Both companies are doing what they can to maximize their bottom line. The consumer wants to get as much as they can for as little cost as possible. That's business.

It is a unique situation. The software vendor has no control over the enviroment in which the software is expected to run. The software vendor has no control of what other software has been loaded on the consumer's machine. The software vender doesn't load and configure the OS.

Customers don't follow the instructions. Software vendors try to help and by asking questions to try and get a handle on things. Many times the answers don't make sense, or the answers are incomplete. They don't tell you about the error code they ignored earlier. They didn't change a thing, until you find out they installed some other piece of software in the interim -- they didn't think it would make any difference.

Anyone who has worked a help desk knows exactly what I mean. Anyone who has had to support a user group, even fellow employees inside their own company has experienced this and knows what I mean. Not only is it quite frustrating to the individual, but it costs time, and that means it costs money. Who should pay for it? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SATWizard]

I think that a significant point of contention with regard to abandoned Operating Systems has been missed. Microsoft has created unique variants of its Windows operating systems for various vendors (e.g. Compaq) so that those vendors computers do not work as well with generic Windows OS's. In doing so, M$ has created a problem for anyone who purchased a computer from one of these vendors because the vendor typically locks a specific model of a computer into a specific version of Windows.

For example, I have a Compaq desktop unit that has Win98 on it. I recently contacted Compaq Tech Support because of an issue and, during that conversation, I asked if there was any known incompatability between the model I own and Win2K. The Tech Support representative told me that COmpaq only supports Win98 on the particular model I own and that changing the operating system would mean I could no longer get supportfrom Compaq. When I pushed the point of "Is there any known incompatability?", I was told that the Win98 OS on my machine was a "proprietary" version of Win98 that was "optimized" for the specific model of computer I own and a generic Win98 would also void any support I might expect. I was then told that "No, there is no OS upgrade path for that model."

When I pointed out that M$ is about to terminate support for Win98, the Tech Support guy said, "Well, that really doesn't matter because Compaq will continue to support it on the model you own." When I asked if Compaq would be releasing any additional Service Pack for Win98, the Tech Support guy told me (in a disgusted tone of voice) that "Compaq does NOT issue Service Packs for Microsoft Operating Systems . . . Microsoft does THAT!" When I pointed out that, IMHO, that meant that Compaq's support of Win98 wasn't worth the proverbial hill of beans, the response was a recommendation that I buy a NEW Compaq that DOES support Win2K.

My point here is that, since it is obvious that there is still utility in a box that was purchased when Win98 was the latest version of Windows, is it not reasonable that either Win98 should be supported as long as the box has utility or that it should be possible to upgrade to a new version of Windows without having to buy a new box? To address it from the analogy of the car, as presented earlier in the thread, car manufacturers are required by law to support a car model by either producing or stockpiling parts for that car for at least 10 years after it is sold. The 10 years figure is determined by a "longest reasonable usage" . . . in other words, the period of time after which most of the cars will have been sold by their original owners. It should also be noted that the standard accounting write-off period for a car is much less than 10 years and, if I remember correctly, is about the same as that of a computer. It might be different, Imho, if it were possible for someone other than Microsoft to diagnose the bugs in a Windows OS and then to fix them but, with the current state of affairs, anyone who does so is probably going to have to violate the M$ copyright and could be prosecuted by M$ for doing so. That means, again IMHO, that Microsoft, by denying the rest of the world access to the information (i.e. source code) required to provide meaningful alternative support, should be required to provide support for its operating systems for a longer period of time (e.g. 10 years).

For the average non-professional user, a computer represents a long term purchase of a similar nature to an automobile at the very least.

 

[skiflyer]

That sounds like compaq being little snots to me. I'd bet dollars to donuts a Win2k upgrade would work fine on that machine assuming it meets all the minimum specs and you have a way to get hold of all the drivers.

I don't think 10 years is a reasonable time to support an operating system though, that'd put Microsoft on the hook for Win 3.1 and DOS 6.0 (or would it be 5.0 back then?)... IBM Would still be holding out support for OS/2 (pre-warp). 10 Years isn't a reasonable length of time for a computer purchase to run with no upgrades... you'd be running DX4's still. Granted this could be done for word processing and email, but I don't want to pay more for my software to support those few people.

And make no bones about it, asking companies to support their software longer means more costs and those costs will be passed on to the consumer.

It will be interesting to see how things progress from here forward, now that I believe we're at a stage where boxes so outperform the average user that they will last longer. When I unpacked a 486DX33 I liked how fast it was, but wanted more, and was immediately jealous of my friend a few months later with a 486DX266. Now however, with my 1GHz machine I sometimes wish for more Ram, but I just didn't care all that much about those 2GHz guys, and am just starting to get interested in the 3GHz machines, but hey... what's the hurry?

-Rob