Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!sichermn From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: hDC Windows Express bug? Message-ID: <1990Nov25.080913.4931@beach.csulb.edu> Date: 25 Nov 90 08:09:13 GMT References: <4891@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <423@nwnexus.WA.COM> Distribution: usa Organization: Cal State Long Beach Lines: 58 In article medici@dorm.rutgers.edu (Mark Medici) writes: >roper@nwnexus.WA.COM (Michael Roper) writes: > >>Silvia Takahashi writes: > >>> [...that if Express is installed as the shell, the >>> "Maximize Automatically" option can cause a UAE.] > >>Yes, there appear to be some inconsistencies in the way >>Windows interacts with shell applications. While none >>of the systems at hDC exhibit this problem (I have run >>with the above configuration for months without seeing >>this behavior), it has been reported by others and will be >>addressed in the next version of Express (or, even better, >>Windows). Until then, the workaround is to disable the >>"Maximize Automatically" option. > >With all due respect and politeness, I strongly suggest that hDC offer >a fixed version of Express to its registered customers as soon as >possible and at no charge. I for one, and I am sure the general >public, are getting sick and tired of being forced to wait and pay for >bug fixes in the form of upgraded versions. Often, the new or >improved features of an upgrade are also accompanied by their own >anomalies, and are of secondary importance to a user who really only >needs a fully functional version of the existing product. > >If an advertised feature is not working as described, the >publisher/marketer should make the necessary reparations without >charge to persons who legally acquire and use the product. Doing >otherwise diminishes the benefits of paying for a product (versus >pirating it) and erodes confidence in and loyalty to you, the >publisher/marketer. > >I believe that upgrades are an important service to the industry. >However, a registered owner should not be forced to pay for an upgrade >to correct existing problems with a product. Rather, the user should >be allowed the ability to determine the appropriateness of the new >features in his/her environment, and decide to purchase or pass on the >upgrade based on this evaluation. >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mark Medici/SysProg3 * Rutgers University/CCIS * medici@elbereth.rutgers.edu >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are probably no worse than much of the industry and may even be better but the point is well taken - if cars can be recalled then so can software. I dont think that a govt agency (=lobbying center) is the answer but maybe a software users foundation (there *is* a Software Publishers association to promote *their* interests) is appropriate. Software licenses and their caveats notwithstanding, I think the presence of a feature implies a warantee for its operation and functionality and a bug is a breech (sp?) of that warantee. It's time to see that such explicit and implied warantees are enforced. Does anyone know of such an organization ? Jeff Sicherman