Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!helman@isl.Stanford.EDU
From: helman@isl.Stanford.EDU (Jim Helman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: 3D input, comments on Jim Barton's note
Message-ID: <401@isl.stanford.edu>
Date: 6 Mar 89 20:44:39 GMT
References: <8902281549.AA03342@aero4.larc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: helman@isl.UUCP (Jim Helman)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 31

In article <8902281549.AA03342@aero4.larc.nasa.gov> blbates@AERO4.LARC.NASA.GOV (Bates TAD/HRNAB ms294 x2601) writes:
>
>    5. Correct documentation? What's that? 
>
>    6. Quality?! Service?  I hope these have finally been adopted.
>

>       SGI could learn a few things , correction [sic] a lot, from the
>       microcomputer industry, concerning add on equipment and
>       other things.

Easy there.  If you think SGI is bad, maybe you should look around a
bit.  The SUN hotline takes a week to get back to you.  SGI's hotline
usually returns calls within the hour.  We've even had an SGI field
engineer come out at 6:30 on a Friday evening because we needed the
machine for the weekend.  As for the documentation, it's better than
most and improving.  Just compare the G Graphics Library Manual with
the newer GT Graphics Library Manual.

Sure sometimes you get a brainless person or a neophyte on the hotline
who wastes half an hour of your time reading man pages to him/herself
on the phone.  And sometimes SGI can't supply working replacement
parts, such as the latest processor board, in a timely fashion.  But
overall, SGI does better than any other company of its size that I've
dealt with.


Jim Helman
Department of Applied Physics			P.O. Box 10494
Stanford University				Stanford, CA 94309
(jim@thrush.stanford.edu) 			(415) 723-4940