[Top] [All Lists]


To: <ct-user@contesting.com>
Subject: Support
From: na2n@ifam.com (na2n@ifam.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 10:01:24 -0400
>Makes me sorry I asked!  Can we get back to an attitude of helping/
>coaching/and mutual support for each others problems and questions
>on this venue, and move your complaints to a more direct channel to
>the vendor?  Last time I checked, the documents list a direct voice
>phone, a fax number, a dedicated BBS, and an internet address. Don't
>complain to the rest of us here on the remailer. We can't help you
>with the support strategy of Harvard Radio.

I agree in theory. However, when the support lines are not answered, the 
faxes go off into neverland, questions on the BBS are ignored, and who knows 
what happens to the email, what avenue other than the reflector is left?
And, if you notice, the reflector traffic is the ONLY thing that has received 
ANY reply from the author. It is unfortunate that questions and criticism in a 
public forum are the only way to elicit a reaponse, but if that's the way it 
that's the way it is. 

>CT is a complex piece of code, and has been a godsend to the contesting
>community. The price is a pittance compared to other "specialized"
>products with a narrow target markets. At these prices, don't expect
>the author to "stop the shop" to fix a non-lethal defect, especially
>when there is an easy workaround (as there is in this case).

OK, so let me understand this... I, as a manufacturer, have less obligation to 
support lesser-priced items with fewer users than I do the big-ticket or big 
market stuff? My accountant might agree with you, but I don't know how 
well I'd sleep...

Let's look at the list of features that supposedly induced us all to buy 
CT9.XX. Quoting from the ad in May/June 94 NCJ...

"Parallel keyer paddle support"  - Really? Tell me how.
"Generic contest mode" - I can't find it.
"Single op/Multi TX support" - well, kind of, recently...

etc., etc., etc.......

I agree that for $79.99, CT 9 is a pretty good value. When it works. It'd be 
better if it ALL worked (I am not pie-in-the-sky enough to expect that). What 
I DO expect is that if something gets broken, it gets noted in the release 
I expect that if something is intentionally, knowingly removed (ie. transmitter 
switching via LPT2) it be noted in the release notes. I expect that if I make a 
phone call, send a fax, leave a note on a BBS or drop a line via email, it be 
replied to in a timely and responsible fashion. I expect the things that are 
advertised to actually EXIST in some form or fashion - maybe even to 
WORK under some circumstances.

I very much appreciate the support of the other CT users on the reflector 
who have contributed ideas and advice, both to me and others. In several 
cases, hearing things were busted for someone else prompted me to look for 
something I might not otherwise have found until <aack> the thing puked 
during the contest.

I don't consider this flameage. I consider this public discussion about the 
product, which includes K1EA's support policies. After all, we're paying for 
BOTH of those things. Maybe not enough... but that's another topic.

Greg Becker NA2N
Ideas For American Manufacturers - "Technology Conceptualization and 

Submissions:              ct-user@ve7tcp.ampr.org
Administrative requests:  ct-user-REQUEST@ve7tcp.ampr.org
WWW:                      http://ve7tcp.ampr.org/Lists/ct-user.html
Questions:                reisert@ve7tcp.ampr.org

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Support, Hans Brakob
    • Support, na2n@ifam.com <=