Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Microsoft Use of 900 Number for Tech Support Message-ID: <68904@bu.edu.bu.edu> Date: 17 Nov 90 01:47:55 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 50 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 827, Message 9 of 11 gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon LETWIN) writes: > What a hostile person you are. If you reasoned as well as you hate > you'd get somewhere. [plus a lengthy explanation of why Microsoft isn't responsible for DOS] My version of DOS 4.01 says nothing but Microsoft on the box, the manuals and the disks. I purchased it at Fry's Electronics as generic Microsoft DOS 4.01. It is NOT OEMed. So who is responsible? Who made the big bucks? Now, that out of the way, let me set the record straight on what product my original question was about. It was Microsoft Windows 3.0. Is that OEMed as well? I bought it at the same time as the DOS at Fry's. Your comments are certainly consistent with those I received from others at Microsoft. The problem lies everywhere else. My hardware, my other software, even me. Now you claim that others are getting rich off of Microsoft products, so the company isn't even responsible for collecting the profits! How do you equate my observations of poor customer service with hate? Is it hostility to expect that a manufacturer would make even a reasonable attempt to support a product? Is demurement about a 900 number for "customer service" a symptom of latent aggression? > So we offer "free" support for our retail products because we received > the retail markup and support is one of the things you do to earn that > money. We didn't receive the retail markup for DOS, the OEM did, and > the OEM is the person who needs to support it; that was their > agreement. As a convenience to customers who don't want to call the > OEM or whose OEM's are not doing a good job, Microsoft now offers > support for DOS, but we have to charge for it now since we didn't get > any money for that service when we sold your OEM the DOS. I'm sorry, but my observations indicate that this is totally bogus. The only number listed for technical help with Windows 3.0 is a 900 number. Could you supply me with the OEM for that product? I am positive that whoever it is, they could supply far better assistance than I have managed to get from Microsoft (for my $15.00 in 900 charges). Actually, even though the principle of "900" customer assistance is offensive, my attitude would be somewhat different if I could have received any value for my $15.00. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !