From: cshaver@informix.com (Craig Shaver)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: ST/V PM 2.0 upgrade -- overpriced ?
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:18:45 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.131012.17627@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> gregb@pro-lep.cts.com writes:
>In  <9210021940.AA04644@data.src.honeywell.com>  bergstro@src.honeywell.com (Pete Bergstrom) writes:
>>From: marten@feki.toppoint.de (Marten Feldtmann)
>>> [ prices deleted]
>>
>>I've fired off an unhappy note to the compuserve address asking them
>>to clarify this situation.
>>
>>In fact, I'm not mad, I'm pissed.
>>
>>Pete
>
>I agree.  I recently gave these boneheads a hundred bucks to
>upgrade to 1.4 (after several previous upgrades - I've been
>with V/PM since 1.0).  Now they've doubled the retail, and
>tripled the upgrade cost (almost).  Not a business practice
>that I'm willing to underwrite - they've lost a long-time
>customer with this one.
>
>Could you post that compuserve address?
>__________________________________________________________
>Greg Bryant                                 (512) 795-0323
>Delta Music Systems                             Austin, TX
>INET: gregb@pro-lep.cts.com
>ARPA: wixer!pro-lep!gregb@cs.utexas.edu
>Just consulting.   Not an employee.   Not representing IBM

DITTO!
 
	I tried to send the following as a private reply but got
bounced.

== 
== After 5 days (127 hours), your message to the following people:
== 
== 	brenda  (host=digitlk)
== 
== could not be delivered.
== 
==    ----- Unsent message follows -----   
== Received: from relay2.UU.NET by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.1.031792-PSI/PSINet)
== 	id AA14334; Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:37:39 -0400
== Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
== 	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA05881; Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:37:38 -0400
== Received: from infmx.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
== 	(queueing-rmail) id 163645.18545; Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:36:45 EDT
== Received: from godzilla.informix.com by informix.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
== 	id AA20810; Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:49:46 PDT
== Received: from wisteria.informix.com by godzilla.informix.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
== 	id AA13949; Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:50:03 PDT
== Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:50:03 PDT
== From: uupsi!informix.com!cshaver (Craig Shaver)
== Message-Id: <9209281850.AA13949@godzilla.informix.com>
== To: la.digitalk.com!brenda
== Subject: ST/V/WIN 2.0 upgrade gripes
== 
== Hi Brenda,
== 
== 	I saw a posting in Comp.lang.smalltalk from a dissatisfied canadian
== customer.  I have to agree with him about the recent upgrade.  In addition I
== feel that your shipping policy is pretty bad.  It should not be necessary to
== send 2-day or overnight something that you had to wait 3-6 weeks for anyway.
== 
== The 2.0 upgrade was not worth the money.  It felt like a bug fix with a couple
== of goodies thrown in.  I know that upgrades are now thought of as a major 
== source of revenue to many software companies, but not all can get away with
== customer abuse for long.  Microsoft released win 3.1 as a major upgrade but
== it has turned out to be a bug fix also.  They may get away with this because
== of their market presence.  I feel that if a viable competitor emerges (OS/2
== or UNIX) then they will get their come-uppance.  I no longer upgrade WORD for
== win or EXCEL.  I have moved to AMI PRO, and will stay there until they get
== abusive.
== 
== I will no longer upgrade ST/V/WIN.  I am writing this letter to let you know
== in advance and to have you try and think about the many that are silent on
== the subject but vote with their feet.  I will not buy PARTS ($2000!), I will
== upgrade to ST/V/PM 2.0, but will look for a place to stop that upgrade path.
== I will also seriously look at alternate tool sets (c++ even).  I may not mean
== much to you but my customers do.  They include Informix, Opticom, Pacific 
== Bell, Boeing, Xerox, ....
== 
== 	love craig
== 
-- 
Craig Shaver  (cshaver@informix.com for now) (415)390-0654 (415)926-6407
Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA  94088