Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!psuvax1!owens
From: goldstin@shire (Jonathan Goldstine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Gateway 2000
Message-ID: <1989Jul28.045928.16325@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 89 04:59:28 GMT
Reply-To: goldstin@shire (Jonathan Goldstine)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 25

A few days ago, I posted a summary of comments about Gateway 2000, which
included some favorable comments about technical support.  The current issue
(July 24) of InfoWorld reviews 11 33MHz 386's.  It rates Gateway's a top value
because it costs less than the others.  However, it says the following about
technical support:  
 
"We made three calls to technical support and each time had to leave our
number for a callback.  Twice we had to wait until the next working day and
only once did we get a callback the same day, three hours later.  When we did 
talk to the technicians, their responses were curt; the first problem we posed
wasn't solved until we called again and identified ourselves as InfoWorld. 
The second problem was answered correctly, but the technician had to refer to
others for the answer.  Callback delays and uneven responses combine for a
poor score in technical support."
 
The comment about calling back the next day does not surprise me; other people
had described that policy but were still very satisfied with the technical
support.  But I am having trouble reconciling the rest of the comment with the
other reports.  Is it possible that InfoWorld asked tough questions and the
satisfied users asked easy ones?
 
goldstin@psuvaxs.bitnet
goldstin@shire.uucp
goldstin@shire.cs.psu.edu