From: ejohnson@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Eric R. Johnson)
Subject: Re: patch for os/2 fails
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:00:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.175356.27285@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.051103.8902@ennews.eas.asu.edu> ejohnson@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Eric R. Johnson) writes:
> 
> >My reasoning is simple: I need geos to run under os/2.  what more reason do 
> 
> The person you talked to is correct.  PC/GEOS v1.x was not designed to run
> under OS/2 v2 and until the last few months OS/2 v2 itself was tremendously

Again, I acknowledge that it wasn't designed to run under os/2.  Again, so
what?  os/2 uses v86 to emulate multiple 8086 dos sessions.  geos will run on
an _8088_.  Where is the conflict?  This is meant to be a technical, not a
political question.  I'm getting hassled for raising a legitimate technical
question, and voicing my opinion that I was treated poorly by geos tech 
support.


> unstable.  As you say below, PC/GEOS v2 will run under OS/2 v2.  That is
> *the* solution.  If, as you seem to want, GeoWorks made a running change
> for every issue like this that each user wanted and shipped a bunch of
> interim versions then PC/GEOS v2 would never, ever get done!  Have you ever

I made no such request.  I can aftp _beta_ comm drivers (among many others)
for os/2 and apply them myself.  I don't _need_ an interim version, I need
an appropriate two line patch!

> GeoWorks knows what the patch is.  That doesn't mean a whole helluva lot as
> PC/GEOS v2 was designed to work with OS/2 v2.

It means I can't use geos.  That means something to me, hence this discussion.
And contrary to your statement, the tech I spoke to claim no personal knowledge
of the patch (after some discussion, he admitted he had _heard_ of one). 

> >will work under os/2.  It's just plain bad business to tell your customers
> >(of two years standing, or so , 1.1) to get lost, we're not interested in you
> >problem.  AND(!), what kind of banker's hours are 9-3, anyway ;-) only half-
> >smiley, there.  It took me _several_ tries before I got through.
> 
> Have you ever run a business?  Seriously.  GeoWorks has to prioritize how
> it allocates it's resources to achieve the maximum benefit.  How's it gonna

I run my own business, work in an office 3 days+ a week, go to school, attend
users groups, and try to actually see my wife and kids occasionally.

> do that?  Easy, it finds out what the customer wants.  Your attitude is
> that since *you* personally want (need) that fix *right now* that GeoWorks
> should drop everthing and just do it.  

I disagree, and think you are putting words in my mouth.  I think that they
could care _less_ about my problem.  I _am_ a customer.  The attitude of the
tech I spoke to was almost hostile.

GeoWorks on the other hand has
> talked to a great many people to find out what they want as a large
> population of users (and many who aren't currently users to find out what
> would make them users :-).  GeoWorks has based it's plans on those
> findings.
[...]
> I'll check into it.  I highly doubt that they in any way said that they
> didn't care about user problems (your make a very grand generalization from
> one isolated incident).

I make generalizations based on my _experiences_, the same as you, I'm sure.
This is the same attitude I've been handed each time I've been able to break
through during the proper time-frame.  I have not had to talk with tech
support often, because geos is (IMO) such a good product.

> Thanks for bringing up this issue,

Your welcome ;-)

> 			John D. Mitchell
> 			johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU

Eric

Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.pcgeos,news.answers