Zoli Pitman HA1AG
ha1ag at yahoo.com
Sun May 13 17:28:50 EDT 2007
IMO Bruce really hit the bullseye with this:
> The business model here is worse than Microsoft's - at least when they
> get done updating a software product the bugs are pretty much worked out
> and you usually do not have to upgrade to a new version (for a fee) to
> solve bugs.
This is what I really agree with. The fault management and functionality extension are bound together in case of WL and I really don't like it. It is their choice, my choice was not to upgrade (after 2003 iirc).
My major problem with WL was the fault management. I didn't understand why certain faults were never handled why certain imo less important ones, got full attention. I never felt fault management was an interactive process, too - like someone reports a fault, and it turns out to be true, an author gives an estimate about what will happen. Some faults were kept reported all over again and noone reacted from the WL team.
What I also considered negative and made me stop using and subscribing WL at the end were certain policies like the lack of integrated LPT support for XP and the consequent lack of SO2R support (A/B bits on LPT ports only thus not under XP). If W5XD had said "guys, I need to invest X hours and Y dollars to get it done, and it will come in version A which would cost you Z dollars and would be available in Q - R months" I would have been supportive even without knowing X and Y. Knowing that Writelog team left this problem to some third party SW or HW really disappointed me.
So I left WL and only use it for some QSO Parties in version 10.45 but for serious contesting I migrated to Win-Test. In some aspects it is worse, less mature and less intuitive than Writelog but the two issues above are fully addressed and for me that was important.
73, Zoli HA1AG
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
More information about the WriteLog