SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: rudedog who wrote (27669)2/13/2000 8:49:00 AM
From: Lynn  Read Replies (3) of 64865
 
Good morning, rudedog: Going with your serious comment followed by break-down of bug categories, one thing that bothers me about MSFT releasing a product with so many bugs is the expense OEMs will incur as a direct result of these bugs. Without knowing what the bugs are, there is no way (for me, at least) of knowing the financial or "reputation" impact of Windows 2000 on OEMs.

It is because of my own experiences with MSFT and Compaq technical support last year that I ask my question. I wonder if Windows 2000 is going to cause similar problems for OEMs as a homeowner would face if someone dumped hazardous waste in their back yard in the middle of the night: they are not responsible for the problem occurring but they both get stuck with the expense of cleaning it up.

Last year when I bought my notebook, an Armada 7400, I had a problem with Windows and also one question. Instead of calling Compaq, I telephoned MSFT and was unable to get anyone to provide me with any assistance because the OS had come loaded on the machine. They informed me that any assistance with the **Windows** problem would have to be addressed by CPQ. MSFT would take no responsibility at all for helping me with the problem, a 100% MSFT Windows problem.

Compaq ultimately helped me, but even CPQ initially told me to call MSFT. It was only after I relayed the entire, frustrating story of my calls to MSFT that they did. The assistance CPQ provided cost _them_ money.

All these MSFT "bugs" that result in CPQ customers calling, some recognizing that the problem is a Windows problem and others, possibly angry, calling for technical (or warranty) service because they think it is a problem with their CPQ machine, must be taken into account by CPQ when determining staffing requirements for technical support.

Although I only mention CPQ above, I assume the same holds true for OEMs such as DELL, GTW, and IBM. Even though I found CPQ very, VERY helpful, I do not know if this is because the technical support people I deal with are in the "enterprise" division (big business, non-consumer) such that people who have Windows bug related problems on their consumer CPQ PC would have a different experience with tech support.

The way I feel about Windows, I think MSFT should _pay_ OEMs to use the OS in their machines.

Lynn
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext