Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Reader Voices: Paid Support

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 12:41:49 AM PDT

Support professionals will tell you that the vast majority of software support incidents are caused by user error or user failure to read the documentation. So does that mean software publishers are justified in charging for any support that actually requires individual attention? One of my recent stories provoked an interesting discussion in that regard.


A number of readers argued that if support isn't paid for by the user everyone, including customers who solve the issue on their own, will wind up paying higher prices. "Someone, somewhere has to pay for product support," wrote one reader. "Let's face it, nine times out of ten it's not a problem with the product but some user setup issue. The fact that your reader eventually got it going by himself indicates to me this is one of those times -- surely it's reasonable to charge for handholding?"

But other readers thought that the original situation involving Nuance (formerly known as ScanSoft) makes the opposite point. "I, too, have no problem paying extra for extra support, but my experiences with Nuance have been horrible," a different reader wrote. "Their survey was much, much longer than anything I had ever had to fill in for any other company in the 20 plus years I have in PC software support. I HAD been a big fan of ScanSoft software, but in the last few years, it has been big, buggy, and slow."

Others suggested that the increasing lack of documentation and customer access to knowledge base information undercuts the rationale for paid support. "I agree that paid support makes sense," wrote another reader. "Someone has to pay for it, and 90% of the time it's the user's configuration or setup causing the problem. My objection is to the lack of an available knowledgebase. The companies that make you register to look at the knowledgebase or worse -- downloading patches and updates -- are just as bad. I don't want to spend 10 minutes providing the marketing department with information before I can troubleshoot a product I paid for. Whoever the current owner of EZ-CD Creator lost a customer on that one. So my solution is to make the knowledgebase publicly available and easily accessible. Give us access to the same scripts you have your level one support monkeys reading -- if I still need your help to troubleshoot my computer, I will pay for it or return the product."

If you've paid for a product, however, others feel strongly that the software publisher does owe you some minimal form of support. "Out of a duty to customers, all software for individual use --enterprise use software should have a separate set of rules -- should have at least a minimum limited-free tech support period, wrote another reader. "Thirty days would probably be enough in most cases, but 90 days ought to cover everything. After that, I don't have an issue with charging for support."

After all, what if the product simply doesn't work? "I object to paying support fees for software I have purchased," wrote another reader. "If I purchase a program, I expect it to work properly. If it doesn't work properly, then it is the fault of the program, not of myself, even if it is an incompatibility with something else. I'm absolutely livid about those companies that charge for bug reports, especially in the cases where the user isn't even expecting a response, perhaps because they've discovered a workaround themselves. That's just rampant stupidity and money-grubbing."

In that respect, it's difficult to consider the question of paid support in total separation from the issue of software quality we've been discussing. "That's called the 'software lifecycle,'" wrote another reader about paying support for buggy software. "You get an unusable version 1.0, crummy version 2.0, a marginally usable version 3.0, and a fully functional but fairly buggy 4.0, and then a decent 4.1 or 4.2. Then you get a bloated 5.0, a slow and crufty 6.0, a broken 7.0, an unusable 8.0, and if the gods have mercy that's where it stops. Eventually someone else makes version 1.0 of new software with the same sort of functionality, and the cycle starts again."

So what do you think? Should customers always pay to cover the cost of support, pay only if the company can prove the answers weren't readily available in documentation or knowledge base on their website, pay after some minimum number of days or support incidents, or pay only if the software itself is free? Answer the poll in the left-hand column of this page, post your comments below, and/or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

< Redmond Runaround Goes for PDAs, Too | Hilton's Suite Surrender of Fair Use Rights >


Display: Sort:
Reader Voices: Paid Support | 183 comments (183 topical) | Post A Comment
Pay for support only if the docs are good[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by LasVegan on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 07:35:50 AM PDT

I have no problem with companies charging for support when the answer was available but all too often it isn't. A perfect example from eons ago: I bought a controller card and ended up calling the place I bought it from several times about configuration issues to the point their tech was upset with me saying I should have had them install it instead. I stumped him with the last one and so I had to contact the manufacturer. I got an updated manual from them--and found that the new one answered every question I had called the store with. Issues not addressed in the manual that came in the box.

[ Reply to This ]


vb cv [ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 08:14:20 AM PDT

vcb vcb vc

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


ask[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#148)
by masa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:33:03 PM PDT

fLfffbfVf"fO
fLfffbfVf"fO^ê----
fLfffbfVf"fO"äŠr
fGf °°°æ`oe
fGffTfCfg
--`­
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
fffŠfwf<
fGf

H
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
--`­<l
fffŠfofЁ[fwf<fX
fGfbf`
fGf
fAff<fgfrfffI
-³C³"® °
°°æ
--`­<l
f&#129;[fvf °°°f"fh
fffŠfwf<
fGf"® °
°°æ
fGf
fGfbf`"® °°°æ
fGfbf`
lÈ
n--
,¦,Á,¿
-³C³
ffŠfRf"
fZfbfNfX
SM
fAf
f<fg"® °
°°æ
fAff<fg
--`­
,¨,Ü,ñ,±
,¨,ß,±
fIfifj[
fGf
fGfbf`
fGfbf`
fGfbf`
fAf
f<fgfrfffI
fGfbf`
fGfbf`
-³C³
fGffTfCfg
*--`­<l
-³C³"® °°°æ
-³C³"® °
°°æ
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



ask[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#155)
by masa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM PDT

o /, o /,OenfTfCfg fZftfOe o /,U-- `,,, ---o /, --D--Ǐo /, o /,`'k o /,`Oe'k o /,f}fjf...fAf<</a> --l fLfffbfVf"fOf[f" ^"o /, o /,fTfNf / o /,fJftfF o^<</a>

[
Parent | Reply to This ]


antimaulnetizm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#171)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:42:02 PM PDT



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


rrr[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#186)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 07:05:11 AM PDT

Free YouTube Downloader | YouTube to iPod | YouTube on PSP | YouTube to MP3 | YouTube to MP4 | YouTube to 3GP | YouTube to AVI | YouTube to MPG | YouTube to WMV | YouTube to DivX | YouTube to MOV | YouTube to WMA | YouTube Ripper YouTube to iPod | YouTube to iPhone | YouTube to PSP | YouTube to Zune | YouTube to MP4 | YouTube to Apple TV | YouTube to 3GP | iPod to PC Transfer

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Software incompatibilities[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by partan on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:10:21 AM PDT

What I hate most is incompatibilities due to the Windows OS being the repository of all dlls. Recently, I installed an updated version of our corporate scanning software that updated the pixtran dlls. Of course, we're using an older version of document imaging software that relies on an older version of the dlls. Thus the document imaging viewer doesn't work properly, after the scanning software upgrade. The main dilemma: we want to install the scanning upgrade to use its indexing functions, before we upgrade the document imaging software. So, I needed to add another PC with the new scanning software for 3 users to share. If the dlls were not installed in a common place, this wouldn't be necessary. I know, there's the advantage of less drive space, but these days, hard drive space is cheap.

[ Reply to This ]


A workaround.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by foxyshadis1 on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 11:45:55 AM PDT

The workaround to that is to figure out exactly what dlls are being updated (although it's very possible that the new software actually tries to install some ancient win2k or even win9x version of the dlls, if the software was developed on that platform), and copy them to the app's folder. Anything in its own folder will loaded first. If you're not sure, just watch the install for what files are written with FileMon, or watch what files it loads on startup. Then you can reinstall the other app and give it its dlls, too.

Lots of software has moved to using its own dlls exclusively, which is nice. (At least until security bugs are found in them, at which point various versions might all need to be updated somehow, not as important for client-side software.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



dll hell[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by partan on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 08:54:28 AM PDT

Thanks for the advice.  

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Partially true[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:32:27 PM PDT

That's only partially true. DLLs in the app's folder will be used if and only if no other apps are already using a DLL with the same name. If frob.dll is already loaded by another application from C:\bork\frob.dll, then that's the version that will be used by any other apps, even if they have a more recent version in their own folders. (Although XP does have a mechanism that lets you bypass this; but then you end up using more memory and you can't access any system library any more.)

Also, COM components have to be registered in a single location, which all apps that use that component will load it from. Though if these have been versioned properly then you shouldn't have as much grief with them.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Thanks[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by partan on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:57:04 AM PDT

I'll try moving the dlls when I can.  Thank you for writing about these other gotchas.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Nice[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#183)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 05:13:54 AM PDT

http://www.bieletext.de http://www.bieleprint.de http://www.biele-print.de http://www.biele-net.de http://www.bielegift.de

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Get into the habit of disputing charges...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 09:02:52 AM PDT

My personal opinion is that beyond a minimum amount of free support (for every program at retail), companies should charge for incidents that don't involve bugs, including security holes, and/or items in the manual/online help. Personally, if a company charges you for a support call where you found a bug, tell the support person that you intend to dispute the charge for the support call (assuming he doesn't agree to waive the charge). If enough people do this en-masse, then companies would rethink their "charge no matter what" support policies.

[ Reply to This ]


Security Holes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by sconeu on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 10:13:41 PM PDT

companies should charge for incidents that don't involve bugs, including security holes

Since when is a security hole not a bug?  Is it a feature?

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Wording, charging[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 09:47:19 PM PDT

The wording is unclear. I think the OP meant to define bugs as "including security holes".

Charging for only what IS disclosed in the documentation/FAQ makes more sense than for what ISN'T.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



ask[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#137)
by masa on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:40:54 PM PDT

H
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
--`­<l
fffŠfofЁ[fwf<fX
fGfbf`
fGf
fAff<fgfrfffI
-³C³"® °°°æ
--`­<l
f&#129;[fvf °
°°f"fh
fffŠfwf<
fGf"® °°°æ
fGf
fGfbf`"® °
°°æ
fGfbf`
lÈ
n--
,¦,Á,¿
-³C³
ffŠfRf"
fZfbfNfX
SM
fAf
f<fg"® °°°æ
fAff<fg
--`­
,¨,Ü,ñ,±
,¨,ß,±
fIfifj[
fGf
fGfbf`
fGfbf`
fGfbf`
fAf
f<fgfrfffI
fGfbf`
fGfbf`
-³C³
fGffTfCfg
--`­<l
-³C³"® °
°°æ
-³C³"® °/°°æ
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fh


[ Parent | Reply to This ]


er[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#162)
by masa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM PDT

<h2>fLfffbfVf"fO<h2>


fLfffbfVf"fOf[f"fLfffbfVf"fOf[f"fLfffbfVf"fOf[f",ð"äŠr
fLfffbfVf"fOfLfffbfVf"fOfLfffbfVf"fO"äŠrfTfCfg
fLfffbfVf"fO^ê----fLfffbfVf"fO^ê----fLfffbfVf"fO^ê----
fLfffbfVf"fO"äŠrfLfffbfVf"fO"äŠrfLfffbfVf"fO,¾,æI
fLfffbfVf"fOfLfffbfVf"fOfLfffbfVf"fO
<H2>o °
°°ï,¢<H2>

V,µ,¢o °
°°ï,¢,ª,·,®,Å,«,é,±,ÆŠÔ ^á,¢,È,¢,Å,µ,å,¤I
o °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfg^ê----
-³--¿o °
°°ï,¢-³--¿o °°°ï,¢-³--¿o °°°ï,¢fTfCfg
o °°°ï,¢fJftfFo °°°ï,¢fJftfFo °°°ï,¢fJftfF,Ä °°°½
`Ò,¿‡,í,¹`Ò,¿‡,í,¹`Ò,¿‡,í,¹,Í,Ç,±
o °°°ï,¢fTfNf °°°o °°°ï,¢fTfNf °°°o °°°ï,¢fTfNf °°°,É'...,¨t,¯
-³--¿o °°°ï,¢-³--¿o °°°ï,¢-³--¿o °°°ï,¢fTfCfg
--D--Ǐo °
°°ï,¢--D--Ǐo °°°ï,¢--D--Ǐo °°°ï,¢W‡
o °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgf °°°f"fLf"fO
o °°°ï,¢o °°°ï,¢o °°°ï,¢,½,¢,·,×,Ä,̏o °°°ï,¢fT[frfX,ð-³--¿,Å'ñ<Ÿ,µ,Ä,¨,è,Ü,·B
o °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfg,ð`I,Ô
o °
°°ï,¢,¾,æo °°°ï,¢o °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfg,Ä °°°½H ,
o °
°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢OenfTfCfgo °°°ï,¢,Å--V,Ú,¤I
o °°°ï,¢U--ªo °°°ï,¢U--ªo °°°ï,¢U--ª,·,é,É,Í
-³--¿o °
°°ï,¢-³--¿o °°°ï,¢-³--¿,ŏo °°°ï,¦,é,́H
--D--Ǐo °°°ï,¢--D--Ǐo °°°ï,¢--D--Ǐo °°°ï,¢,ÌffŠfbfg,́H
o °
°°ï,¢`Š'ko °°°ï,¢`Š'ko °°°ï,¢`Š'k,Å,«,é,Ì
o °°°ï,¢`ÌOe±o °°°ï,¢`ÌOe±'ko °°°ï,¢`ÌOe±'k,Í,±,¿,ç
o °
°°ï,¢f}fjf...fAf<o °°°ï,¢f}fjf...fAf<o °°°ï,¢f}fjf...fAf<,Í, ,é,Ì
o °°°ï,¢fTfNf °°°o °°°ï,¢fTfNf °°°o °°°ï,¢fTfNf °°°
åWI
o °°°ï,¢fJftfFo °°°ï,¢fJftfFo °°°ï,¢fJftfF,Ä °°°½H
^«"¿o °°°ï,¢^«"¿o °°°ï,¢^«"¿o °°°ï,¢,¾,æ
o^§<óŠÔo^§<óŠÔo^§<óŠÔ,Å--V,Ô
fZftfOefZftfOefZftfOe,ªW,¤fTfCfg
`Ò,¿‡,í,¹`Ò,¿‡,í,¹`Ò,¿‡,í,¹,²Šó-]
--öl--öl--öl,ª--~,µ,¢
<h2>fGf</h2>
fGf"® °
°°æfGf"® °°°æfGf,¾,æ
fGffGffGf,µ,©,Ë,È
fGf"® °
°°æfGf"® °°°æfGf"® °°°æ,ð'T,·
fGf"® °°°æfGf"® °°°æfGf"® °°°æ,ðOe©,é
fGffGffGf,ð'T,·B
fGffGffGfâ`Î
fGffGffGfW‡
fGf °
°°æ`oefGf °°°æ`oe    fGf °°°æ`oeŽûW °°°Æ
fGffTfCfgfGffTfCfgfGffTfCfg,Å,à
fGffGffGf,Å-ž`«
fGffGffGf,ª,Ý,½,¢
<h2>--`­</h2>
*--`­
--`­--`­,ðï,Ô
*--`­<l
--`­<l--`­<lL
*--`­
--`­--`­îñ
--`­<l--`­<l--`­<låW
f&#129;[fvf °
°°f"fhf&#129;[fvf °°°f"fhf&#129;[fvf °°°f"fh,Å--V,Ô
<h2>fffŠfofЁ[fwf<fX<h2>
fffŠfofЁ[fwf<fXfffŠfofЁ[fwf<fXfffŠfofЁ[fwf<fX,Å--V,Ú,¤
<h2>fffŠfwf<</h2>
fffŠfwf<fffŠfwf<fffŠfwf<,ðOeÄ,Ú,¤
fffŠfwf<fffŠfwf<fffŠfwf<,ðï,Ô
<h2>fZfbfNfX</h2>
fZfbfNfXfZfbfNfXfZfbfNfX,µ,½,¢
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fhfZfbfNfXftfOef"fhfZfbfNfXftfOef"fh,ð'T,·
fZfbfNfXfZfbfNfXfZfbfNfXfsfXfgf<fY
fZfbfNfXfZfbfNfXfZfbfNfX,µ,½,¢lŽð<   
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fhfZfbfNfXftfOef"fhfZfbfNfXftfOef"fh,ð`I,Ô
fZfbfNfXftfOef"fhfZfbfNfXftfOef"fhfZfbfNfXftfOef"fh,ð`I,Ô
fZftfOefZftfOefZftfOefLfX
<h2>fGfbf`</h2>
fGfbf`fGfbf`fGfbf`ê-å,Å
fGfbf`"® °
°°æfGfbf`"® °°°æfGfbf`"® °°°æ
fGfbf`fGfbf`fGfbf`,·,²,¢
fGfbf`fGfbf`fGfbf`,µ,½,¢,Ë
H H H,Å,¢,­
<h2>,¦,Á,¿<h2>
,¦,Á,¿,¦,Á,¿,¦,Á,¿,ðOe©,Â,¯,é
<h2>fAff<fg</h2>
fAf
f<fgfAff<fgfAff<fg,ðOe©,é
fAff<fg"® °°°æfAf
f<fg"® °°°æfAff<fg"® °°°æ,ð'T,·
fAf
f<fg"® °°°æfAff<fg"® °°°æfAff<fg"® °°°æ,µ,©,Ë
fAff<fgfrfffIfAff<fgfrfffIfAff<fgfrfffI,ð`I,Ô
fAf
f<fgfAff<fgfAff<fg,Å,à
fAff<fgfrfffIfAff<fgfrfffIfAff<fgfrfffI,ðOe©,é
fAf
f<fg"® °
°°æfAff<fg"® °°°æfAff<fg"® °°°æ,ðï,Ô
<h2>-³C³<h2>
-³C³-³C³"® °
°°æ-³C³,ðOe©,½,¢
-³C³-³C³-³C³,«,Â,Ë
-³C³-³C³-³C³"® °°°æ,ð,Ý,½,¢
-³C³"® °
°°æ-³C³,Å,Ë
<h2>lÈ</h2>
lÈlÈlÈ,Æ--V,Ô
lÈlÈlÈ,Å,·,ª

n--n--n--,ª,·,«
ffŠfRf"ffŠfRf"ffŠfRf",Í,¾,ß
SM SM SM,͍D,«,Å,·,©
,¨,Ü,ñ,±,¨,Ü,ñ,±,¨,Ü,ñ,±,µ,½,¢
fIfifj[fIfifj[fIfifj[,ð,·,é
,¨,ß,±,¨,ß,±,¨,ß,±,ÍŠÄŽ<


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



I agree with your sentiment, but...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by ekuns on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 03:07:58 PM PDT

Some would say that a "bug" is when a program is doing something it is not designed to do, or is not doing something it was supposed to do. Many companies still treat security as an afterthought, if they think of it at all. If a security issue is there because security was never even considered, then it's not really a bug. It's a design flaw or a failure to design for security. But to be a bug, they would need to have intended that it be secure.

But this is semantics only. I agree with your point.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


What is a Bug[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Peter G on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:25:53 AM PDT

My company has a policy of not charging for support issues that were cause by a bug in out program. A problem that often arises is who determines whether it is a bug or a user error. Our policy says that this is up to us because users often try to ascribe their errors as bugs in our software. By the way, If we later determine that a call we charged for is actually a bug, we will refund the charge. Also, we give 60 days of free support with every purchase and 30 days with each upgrade. After that they pay by the call or purchase a support contract.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


More...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Peter G on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:26:56 AM PDT

We also do not charge if we cannot com up with a solution.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Define "solution"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:51:48 PM PDT

Define "solution". Hopefully it includes "customer is satisfied, and whatever it was doesn't happen again", rather than, say, "we make something up about adding a harmless but nonfunctional key to the registry and rebooting, claim we came up with a 'solution', therefore you owe us money ... it didn't work? oh, too bad, you still owe us money"...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


bug off it's a reply[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 11:50:21 PM PDT

Yeah, but how common is it that you actually admit that something is a bug? Saying it's a feature instead is not exactly unknown in the industry. Microsoft is notorious for it, for one.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Documentation[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 09:26:48 AM PDT

If documentation is good -- thorough, well written, not too fat -- I'll accept a charge for something it covers. If it's written by the same people writing the code, chances are no normal user can read it. Then it's only arrogance to charge for advice no one without a CS degree could have distilled from the book. This is why there's such a huge market for 3rd party user manuals. If such a manual sells well, it's proof the software publisher failed. If it's sold at Wal-Mart, you'd darn sure better write for Wal-Mart's customers.

[ Reply to This ]


What about unfinished and Betas?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 10:17:42 AM PDT

Personally, I find it inexcusable that any money has to change hands to give support for an unfinished product that was being sold to customers as if it was a final product. Today's Product Life Cycle goes something like this: sell Alpha, patch, patch, patch, sell Beta, patch, patch, patch, RC1, RC2, 1.0, end-of-viable-life-cycle, patch, patch, patch. Any support after they start selling the product for money, but before it reaches an actual release version should be not-for-charge. You think I want to pay you for the privilege of Beta testing your product and pay you for the privilege of reporting a problem? You should be paying me.

On a similar vein we also have the companies that remove their online help system in favor of the "pay for support call" philosophy. They want you to call and pay a support fee to get the runaround instead of being allowed to search through a group of helpful online documents that might answer your question for them. That sounds to me like they know their product needs help and they feel they should be able to squeeze their customers for it. At least that's one thing in Micro$oft's favor - they have a very extensive help system available online that you can use before calling their pay helpline.

[ Reply to This ]


Important points on the doc with broken software[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by reinkefj on Sat Jun 03, 2006 at 07:24:20 AM PDT

(1) It was the install that was broken as well as the software. (2) I paid for the support incident for which I got one email message to "try again". (3) After a while, it is just not worth fighting about. They count on that! Give up; they win. (4) After that, it is useless to resist. As a result, I will not BUY software retail. I will use Open Source and make a donation. But if it ain't fully functional, then I don't trust you. (5) Guarantees, warranties, and rebates are worthless because they are not honored. AND (6) Never recommend anything altruistically because no good deed goes unpunished. (7) Scansoft Nuance Sucks!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


reinkefj: Scansoft Nuance Sucks[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Rick on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 05:46:16 AM PDT

Hi I'm considering Dragon Naturally Speaking. What are your cautions, warnings and bewares for dealing with Nuance ? Are the User Groups useful in avoiding paid support calls? reinkefj was very specific in dissing them. the exact words were: "reinkefj"

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Nuance Products[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 01:56:33 PM PDT

I have used OmniPage for many years with great results. It has been solid and each new version has been worth the additional investment. It has just not been necessary to make service calls for this software. Now that Nuance has bought OmniPage along with its cousins, it remains to be seen whether or not the quality of its software stable will be maintained or will deteriorate.

I have been a 25 year power user of WordPerfect starting as an original beta tester. There has been a steady deterioration of bug fix support over the past several years which is increasingly troublesome. My recent correspondance with Corel will hopefully influence them to (1) acknowledge existing bugs and (2) make a commitment to fix them. It remains to be seen whether or not the new owners of Corel will choose to go down the same slippery slope upon which we have all watched ScanSoft, Nuance, and others quickly reach obscurity and demise.

I firmly believe that WordPerfect has the capability to recapture a larger market share if they can firmly demonstrate their commitment to improvments in enduring product quality, focused R&D, and improved marketing. The new Corel owner has already made sigificant improvements in the marketing focus because that brings in relatively quick tactical monetary returns. Now we shall see whether or not the new owner has the strategic vision and the enduring will to both improve software quality and maintain significant R&D.

Corel has had a "proof of concept" Linux version of WordPerfect for many years (see the Corel website) but has not chosen to market it to anyone. That was somewhat understandable after Corel accepted significant investment funds directly from Microsoft. Since the new owners have totally bought out all outstanding stock and have taken the company private, it is hard to understand why Corel continues to stick 100 percent with Windows.

What it really takes to kick off a new begining to Linux is to have a critical mass of commercially acceptable application programs that are available to the market to easily install and use. Corel is in an excellent position to be among the first to make the jump. If Corel was joined by Adobe, Intuit type products for inexpensive accounting, great browsers, supported anti-virus and anti-spyware solutions, and reasonable plug and play hardware drivers for screens, printers, scanners, etc., and inexpensive backup solutions, then Linux will take off as a desktop solution. Corel could make an impact here but they are unlikely to make that move without others jumping in at the same time.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Linux[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:08:17 AM PDT

Er, what? Your last paragraph on linux completely ... well ... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Exploding_head.GIF

Let's go over the application categories one by one.

Office apps: we have OpenOffice. Competitive with (and interoperable with) MSOffice products, and yes, they have working user interfaces.

Adobe: Adobe is evil, monopolistic, and proprietary, much like Microsoft. If you meant pdf support, there are TeX implementations that can output pdf, and free pdf readers. There are probably decent graphical readers and TeX frontends by now. There may also be pdf support in OpenOffice.

Accounting: there's a bunch of open source accounting/tax type apps, such as gnucash. These (and commercial-but-less-evil-than-Intuit's ones) get mentioned here every time it's Intuit's turn to get a dunking hereabouts. (Next turn should be quite soon -- Symantec just came around again. ;))

Browsers: *cough*Firefox*cough*. The only decent browser out there is open source and most assuredly has Linux ports. Thunderbird covers mail and usenet and is also widely ported.

Antivirus/antispyware: OK, you're right. There basically are none. That's because there basically are no viruses or spyware for Linux either. What there is is for washing email bound for Windows machines, useful if you happen to run a mail server but probably arcane to operate. For desktop purposes, you don't need it.

Hardware drivers: Linux isn't very weak in this area anymore. Probably the only problem area left, aside from bleeding edge IR-controllable wireless LAN switching TV remote control blender Cuisinarts, is Winmodems, and who the hell is stuck on dialup these days?

The weak areas I still see are entirely different:
Installation, configuration, system management: reportedly getting better for some distros (Ubuntu?)

Obscure genres of app (flow control regulation software for a Mark IX nuclear reactor coolant exchange system -- maybe you won't find a port or interoperable Linux solution anytime soon. More likely, there's a unix-only, source-only distribution of this that can't be made to run on Windows without a lot of blood and tears and who'd want to anyway?)

Games. Although there're games for every platform, games aren't substitutable for one another -- KSomeShootemupClonev6.0 is not Half-Life 2. If the game won't run decently on a Linux box inside Wine, you still need Windoze (or more sophisticated virtual pc software that's likely just as expensive). Unfortunately.

There is also one major cloud on the horizon: the DMCA. Adobe and Microsoft are both moving to include more and more DRM-type features in office document formats. Probably, it will soon be gratuitously impossible to access even "normal", unencrypted, freely-reusable office documents in the latest formats without a "valid license key" of some sort or another, and then the DMCA will be used to strong-arm open source competition into not interoperating. Games publishers will no doubt be sold on a Windows "integrated game environment" that locks the game into a tamperproof box like an arcade game, which game writers will figure to use for everything from cheat prevention to making a game actually require you to pay for every "continue" like an arcade game by needing to purchase new unlock codes after every "game over". Steam seems to be moving in the direction of being exactly such a "tamperproof box", including testing a "pay per play" capability recently (which resulted in lots of owners of Half-Life series games getting told the game they bought was "no longer free" until the next restart, due to a bug; the existence of a message telling someone a game they paid for was "no longer free" in the software is proof that there is support in the software already for "pay per play"); despite these alarming trends, let's hope that game providers decide to prefer Steam over whatever solution MS is shortly going to unveil, or that MS decides to stick with XBox for such purposes instead, as Steam does run on Linux and you can bet whatever MS comes up with most assuredly won't and will be rigged such that distributing an interoperable client for Linux will violate the DMCA.

That is why the time to kill the DMCA is now, ladies and gentlemen -- a year from now, with Vista shipping and DRM increasingly integrated into everything Windoze, it may be too late to save Linux from DMCA-leveraged interoperability lockout, which is clearly Microsoft's ultimate goal with all this trusted computing nonsense. I don't expect a large scale boycott of Windoze is as feasible as a DMCA-killing court decision. The problem is, an outcome finding chunks of the DMCA unconstitutional or that some kind of modification is required to balance antitrust interests is far from certain, given the execrable Blizzard v. BnetD decision. We must find an ideal test case with a sympathetic good guy, unsympathetic bad guys, and a clear overreach in the use of DRM far beyond preventing copyright infringement along with a clear example of fair use being thwarted (oops, already did: the gratuitous use of DRM and the DMCA against a severely disabled child outlined at http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/6/8/161240/0441; rather like not merely fighting a one-armed man that wears thick glasses, but doing so with a tactical nuclear weapon to boot) and get the EFF to jump in with amicus briefs and pro-bono legal aid, then find a friendly court. The last step is the nontrivial one. Especially pulling it off on every subsequent appeal, all the way up to (and including) SCOTUS. :P

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Linux Application Software[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 01:25:54 PM PDT

Yes, there are many open source software solutions that address each of the items I mentioned. Those solutions may be fine for the casual user but they come up short for a power user. Having tested Open Office, it lacks most of the functionality that a true power user requires for a word processor or spread sheet. Adobe's Indesign is the leading candidate for high quality document creation replacing both MS Word (which never was capable of high quality, highly complex documents in the first place) and WordPerfect (has always had the power but no longer has the quality to pull it off). I have both MS Word and WordPerfect installed on my computer so I know whereof I speak. I use WordPerfect to typeset complex books so I absolutely know that MS Word is incapable of playing in the book creation sand box.

You refer to graphics solutions as a user, not as a creator. It is totally uninteresting to a power user whether or not Linux has good graphics readers. What is important is whether or not there is a good Linux application that creates and manages commercially acceptable graphics images. There are only two major players in graphics creation: Adobe and Corel. All of the others are "also rans" and meager "me-toos." You write off Adobe much too quickly. Its software is the best available, regardless of what you think of them as a company. Corel graphics software is quite acceptable. I have both of them loaded on my computer so I know whereof I speak.

Open source accounting packages are of little value if they cannot interface directly with your banking institution.

If I want to choose a particular peripheral for my specific needs, I expect that peripheral to easily work with my operating system. I just bought an IRISPen which interfaces only to Apple OS or Windows. It would be nice for it to interface easily to Linux. I expect that same plug and play capability for any printer I may choose to use. I recently installed an Epson Stylus Pro 4800 printer which has no competition and which does not support Linux.

If you happen to be a casual computer user or games player, perhaps Linux works well for you. If you have high power needs of a computer, Linux is not yet there.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Arcana[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:31:20 AM PDT

If you have high power needs, then you can handle the arcana of Linux's more powerful apps. For graphics we have the GIMP; for typesetting, LaTeX. Not for the faint of heart, but the power is all there.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


GIMP?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by TonyK on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:51:57 AM PDT

For serious work? Where color accuracy is KEY. I am not certain there are any color profilers (hardware based) that run on Linux systems.

GIMP is an okay application, but until it supports TRUE color profiles it will lag behind the others.

And power users != geeks. Linux has always been the domain of geeks. BTDT.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



bug off it's a reply[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:32:51 PM PDT

That might have to do with the fact that all the accurate-color stuff is monopolized by a few evil corporations that are really proprietary about stuff like that. Kind of like MS.

Now which do you want: to be locked into a corporate-controlled world where the prices to do anything ratchet up year by year, or to just plain get your work done without the expense and nuisance factor, given that by merely using some data and software you are not costing anyone anything on an ongoing basis and therefore logically do not owe anyone anything on an ongoing basis. (Electric and network utilities aside of course.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Accurate Color[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 05:45:54 PM PDT

Those "evil" companies that have developed the accurate color features have done so at great expense. You successfully identified the great weakness of "free" software. There is much more to software than "ones" and "zeros". There is real science exercised to understand human responses to different wavelengths and then real science associated with researching, designing, packaging, and marketing devices that display highly calibrated images and also those instruments that are used to inspect and calibrate those display devices.

Back room programmers have none of those resources. Thus these programmers can only produce a well calibrated solution by stealing that solution from someone else. Free software is helpful. Stolen software technology demeans us all. Calling companies "evil" because they had the wherewithal and the will to bring a product to market is extremely disingenuous. Using your logic, if I lock up my lawnmower so you can't steal it, I have somehow become "evil." My grandchildren have better understanding of right and wrong than that.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



bug off when will this be fixed?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:53:57 AM PDT

No. Using YOUR logic, if you use coercion to prevent me from constructing a clone of your lawnmower (while not depriving you of yours) you are somehow NOT evil. Even when it becomes patently obvious (no pun unintended) that the reason you are doing so is so that you can have the only lawnmower in the neighborhood and rent it to me at an extortionate price while denying me any other options, thereby becoming a defacto monopoly, rather than because you fear you will be deprived of the use of your lawnmower.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yes. My logic is right.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 10:17:17 AM PDT

There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from building your own lawnmower from scratch cloning my lawnmower. In fact, patent law allows you to do that. Where you will get into trouble is when you attempt to sell your cloned lawnmower to anyone else. When you build one for your own use, you are a hobbyist. When you build more than one for distribution, you become a thief.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


a reply does not need a subject[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:40:14 PM PDT

Being first on the block with a lawnmower doesn't give you the right to rent it out and to additionally not have any competition, you know, nor should it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


You forget[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by TonyK on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 05:15:57 AM PDT

that MS does not have good color calibration support built-in. For that one has to purchase an add-in to both profile the output device and to LOAD the profile at boot time.

As for as "bug off", why should I? I am responding to a post, which I felt did not provide a full consideration of the issue.

As for as OSS, I use some on my Windows system. I used some when I ran a Linux system. There are some very good OSS applications available. There are a LOT of dogs. Just like the commercial software arena.

What has to be considered is the person's needs and intended use. If one needs features unavailable via Linux and OSS, then no matter what else is said, those tools will not meet that user's needs.

Corporations are businesses. Business is generally about making money. It is how they do it that matters. I would prefer to do business with Ben and Jerry's rather than some big name company that does not give back to the community.

Say what you will about MS, Apple, Adobe and the others, they make a product people are willing to spend money for. We may not like everything about them. Yet to get our work done we realize we have to make compromises in our work tools.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Add the features[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 07:49:51 AM PDT

"If one needs features unavailable via Linux and OSS, then no matter what else is said, those tools will not meet that user's needs."

The last time I looked, if one needs features unavailable via Linux and OSS, one can add them, which is frequently not the case with commercial software and never if adding them requires access to the source code.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You are assuming[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by TonyK on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:17:00 AM PDT

everyone is a programmer, knows a programmer and has the money to pay a programmer.

This is not the case. If it were, it would be possible to build applications under Windows or OS X that create a shell and then provide the needed functionality.

So the argument that one can easily extended/add features in OSS if they desire falls on deaf ears here. BTDT and don't desire to any longer.

Either an application will do what I want or it doesn't. I am not about to sit down and add color management to GIMP or to Linux.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Is it necessary?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:38:51 PM PDT

Is "color management" itself something that's really necessary, or something that's been made necessary through some kind of advertising and convinging-of-the-masses that it is necessary? (Not like that hasn't been done before by a collusion of an ad agency and some other company to manufacture a market for a useless product out of thin air...)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


When you[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#43)
by TonyK on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 03:54:48 AM PDT

have to match with accuracy the color of a piece of cloth from photo shoot to print, yes color accuracy is important.

For professional, commercial photogarphers it has been this way from the beginning. It is not something new. Linux and GIMP developers have been aware of this for a long time. It would seem the market has been ceeded to Apple (OS X) and Microsoft (XP with third party color management tools) as I have seen nothing on the market.

If you know professional, commercial photographers, ask them how important color accuracy is.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]