Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbjade!mwm
From: mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.lang
Subject: Re: re: MASM update policy
Message-ID: <251@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 11-Jan-86 20:25:46 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbjade.251
Posted: Sat Jan 11 20:25:46 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 00:47:52 EST
References: <8797@microsoft.UUCP> <1016@ecsvax.UUCP> <1055@ecsvax.UUCP>
Sender: network@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:6503 net.lang:2033

In article <1055@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes:
>Microsoft's actions in refusing to support their customers (even
>indirect customers) are possibly legal.  They are at best ethically
>questionable.  They are certainly irresponsible.

I've been dealing with Microsoft for most of the last ten years. What do I
think of Micorsoft support? "That's a nice idea."

The only Microsoft product I ever used that I couldn't find bugs in (all
non-trivial programs have bugs; the question is whether they interfere
with your work) was the original Microsoft Basic (Mbasic 4.xx or some
such). As for the rest of the bugs, the best response I got was "that's not
a bug." No, they didn't say it was a feature. They also didn't think that
it should be documented. Probably because it revealed truly awfull things
about the workings of that product to the knowledgable.

I have, as much as possible, disassociated myself from MicroShaft products
for the last three years. It's possible that their attitudes have changed,
but this discussion makes it look like they haven't.

	 <mike