From: Ramon Tate
Subject: Re: Need Customer Feedback!
Organization: Computer Systems Lab., NIH
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:45:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.031909.764@ae.chalmers.se> hogstedt@ae.chalmers.se (Per
Hogstedt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.045820.23005@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>,
wasser@ranger.enet.dec.com (ranger::wasser) writes:
>
>Let's take the disagreements first :-)
>> 	Unfortunately is is hard to justify adding features
>> 	to PC DECwindows Motif when we give it away free
>> 	with PATHWORKS for DOS.  With no feedback in the
>
>No, no and no once again; you are _not_ "giving it away for free".
>DECwindows was a part of the product (PCSA) we evaluated in competition
>with other alternatives many years back. Part of a product we decided to
>buy, to pay licence fees for and finally have a service agreement with
>DEC on. We keep our part of the agreement, partly to make it possible for
>dedicated people at DEC to _develop_ the product (and debug it...).
>I'm not very fond of the idea of having that effort on our part being
>used to support "smart" marketing gurus that once again, after entering the
>DEC marketing think tank, comes up with the brightness we've seen happen
>before: "Hey - now we've got a nice base of installations - let's strip the
>goodies of the product, make them into separate products and have them (=us)
>pay for it once again!"
>So, to summarize, I feel we have a mutual agreement that DEC should be
>nursing, especially in those cases when the software is an important part
>of a computing strategy involving the use of mini-servers (VAXen) and
>PC-based workstations. For example, every DECwindows/MOTIF user is an argument
>why we should not throw out the VAXen and go for micro based servers.
>
>OK, feeling much better now...
>
>And about PC DECwindows Motif: It's very valuable to us, we use it a lot here
>and even if it may have it's flaws, we think it should be supported, developed
>and _not_ be put in the fridge by the nice guys in nice suits!
>If DEC has other intentions that this, let us know and we'll see how much
>pressure the Mill can take :-)
>
>I also hope that you John, Petri and others at DEC keep up the good work
>in this forum - it's good to have you around every now and then.
>
>> 			-John A. Wasser
>> 			 Project Leader (and only remaining engineer)
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                             Say it 'aint true???
>> 			 PC DECwindows Motif
>> 			 PC Integration Group
>> 			 Digital Equipment Corporation
>-- 
>   Per Hogstedt               Internet:  hogstedt@plab.se
>   Lindholmen Utveckling            or:  hogstedt@ae.chalmers.se
>   P.O. Box 8714              Phone...:  +46 31 50 70 50
>   S-402 75 Gothenburg        Fax.....:  +46 31 51 53 13
>   Sweden                     MiniCall:  +46 74 35 68 49
>
  Well said, Per; I'll second this emphatically! A major reason DEC is able to
successfully market the Pathworks suite of products is *INTEGRATION*, something
that the rest of the marketplace, particulary the PC one, sadly lacks. Those of
us who purchased Pathworks did so because it was the best SYSTEM available to
do the things we needed to do, and any view of the pieces as "free" or "gravy"
or "icing" or whatever you want to call it, violates this concept. Not to say
that it can't be improved/expanded/revised to make it better; as Per points
out, that is what we are paying "product support" money for, and we have a
reasonable expectation that the product suite in its entirety will be the
beneficiary of our support, not just the parts that Marketing care to define as
important. Don't forget that it requires a VAX in there somewhere, too, and it
becomes increasingly difficult to demonstrate to management that a "cheap" Un*x
box isn't the way to go when budget time rolls around.
  The corollary to this point of view, then, is that anything that enhances
interoperability and increases the degree of integration of the product line
compontents will enhance the competitiveness and marketability of the entire
Pathworks *SOLUTION*, including its requisite hardware components. The same
arguments hold, in my estimation, for the Infoserver product line as well.

There, *I* feel better, too. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon L. Tate, Ph.D.                "I could not fail to disagree with you
less"
Computer Systems Laboratory, DCRT        - Gabriel Weinrich
National Institutes of Health                     
Bethesda, MD 20892                   tate@faxcsl.dcrt.nih.gov