Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!njin!psuvax1!psuvm!WUBIOS!BOB From: bob@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU (Bob Parks) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sas-l Subject: Infoworld review of pc software Message-ID: <9002281454.AA19018@wubios.wustl.edu> Date: 28 Feb 90 13:54:57 GMT Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" Reply-To: Bob Parks Lines: 26 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL16] Comments: To: SAS Mailing List Comments: cc: Phil Miller , "David J. Camp" , Kathy Jobe I never never do this (unlike Phil Miller) but somehow this says something about the Institute (which I do not like to hear). Infoworld, 2-26-90 page 59 (excuse the typos please) "Sas Institute once again declined to have us review SAS/PC (we evaluated the package in our Sept. 1, 1986, roundup, but they did not participate in the 1988 comparison). SAS/PC is not reviewed because the company insisted on direct contact with the reviewer during the review process. The vendor claimed that the degree of personal contact it has with its users is so high that without this contact, our review could not represent the product fairly. InfoWorld's policy is to maintain reviewer anonymity to ensure that the rreviewer receives the same treatment as a typical buyer would, and we also prefer to enusre our Review Board members are not lobbied by vendors during the review process. Our reviewer, who is experienced with SAS products on multiple platforms, is fully able to independently cand competently review the package. Having reached this impasse, SAS declined to participate." Enough said. I wonder whether they will loose sales over this and will realise that they should loose sales over this. I wonder how well WordPerfect would have done in the market with this kind of attitude (retorical wonder). SYSTAT/SYGRAPH appeared to be the review's choice, out of MINITAB, STATGRAPHICS and SPSS/PC+ (loser due to cost of the separate packages). Bob