Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!pollux!attctc!kcdev!gentry
From: gentry@kcdev.UUCP (Art Gentry)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP Customer Support...
Message-ID: <1013@kcdev.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 89 18:09:12 GMT
References: <203@limbo.Intuitive.Com> <1320019@hp-ptp.HP.COM>
Reply-To: gentry@kcdev.kcdev.UUCP (Art Gentry)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Lines: 79

In article <1320019@hp-ptp.HP.COM> mck@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Doug_McKenzie) writes:

I have only included those parts of the post that I have a response to,
several paragraphs have been intentionally left off for brevity.

>Dave, what are you saying?  It seems what you're suggesting is that HP
>Support is terrible, the best in the business.  It's like after insulting
>and accusing HP of almost malicious negligence, you feel apologetic?!?  I
>think you should calm down.
>
I would tend to agree with this statement.  I've seen Dave 'go off' before
and am starting to think he has a 'thing' about HP since leaving them.  Yes,
this will probably be classified as a ?friendly? flame.  (are we still
friends, Dave?)
>
>I don't deny that bugs have been reported, and not fixed.  Most of these
>have to do with being found too late to make it into the "frozen" release.
>Critical bugs found "at the last minute" ARE incorporated into the release,
>but they must BE critical, because incorporating a fix means re-running the
>fairly huge set of quality assurance tests all over again, and potentially
>delaying a release.  Customers hate it when a release is delayed, just as
>they hate it when they find bugs.  It's a matter of balancing timing with
>the criticalness of the bug.
>
Yes, I do HATE it when releases are way beyond the promised timeframe.  But
on the other hand, I am still smarting from an RTE release that went out so
buggy, it looked like a shotgun was taken to it before it left the factory.
After getting the product manager out here, with sources, spending 2 days
fixing bugs, I found out that it left the factory without being QA'd.  Not
nice guys!!

>I wouldn't even deny that some bug fixes fail to make it into subsequent
>releases.  Nobody's perfect, some bugs fall through holes.  I do deny that
>it's common, much less "almost traditional ... [that] it would just vanish".
>Being returned as "unable to duplicate" can mean many things -- a defect
>submission of 10,000 lines with the comment "it doesn't work", a
>customer-modified or other non-standard HP-UX, lack of adequate
>configuration or other information in the submission, etc.  I think your
>innuendo is that the bug "owner" is lazy, and this is VERY UNTRUE, in my
>experience.
>
Here, I have to disagree!!  Though I might change lazy to unknowlegable.
Many a time, I have had to 'educate' the response center personell on just
how the product/program/process is "supposed" to work, regardless of what
the documentation may say.  While it has gotten better, it still grates
me that I get professional manual readers at the RC and not subject matter
experts.  The standard party line is, "I'll have to get in touch with the
factory and get back to you".

>
>Well, once again I can't deny that this ever happens, but I don't know of
>any times that it has.  I do know that HP has on occassion sent a new
>machine to a customer long before "many months" had passed, when the problem
>couldn't be locally resolved.  Software fixes are usually much quicker to
>resolve, because the problem can be emailed.  Everyone I know at HP
>recognizes that months-long delays in fixing problems loses customers, and
>is perhaps the worst way to run a business.
>
Emailed????  What an original idea????  When is the RC going to recognize that
this is a valid option?  Talk about cost savings!!  Everytime I want a bug
fix I have to wait for the RC to FedEx it to me or spend the time to TRY
and get hold of my local SE to dial into the SE Support System in Fort Collins
to download it for me.  I have requested that the RC uucp patches to me
several times, but they don't want to do this.

>
>I agree about the patch BBS.  Why is the SSB "infamous"?
>
Very simple, it's impossible to use in it's current format.  Unless you have
the time to read through the WHOLE thing.  I'd love to get it on disc/tape
so I could load it onto my system for scanning through.



-- 
| R. Arthur Gentry     AT&T Communications     Kansas City, MO     64106 |
| Email: attctc!kcdev!gentry        ATTMail: attmail!kc4rtm!gentry       |
| The UNIX BBS: 816-221-0475        The Bedroom BBS: 816-637-4183        |
| $include {std_disclaimer.h}       "I will make a quess" - Spock - STIV |