how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA
| reply to Anon00
Re: Symantec Product Activation Poses Problems said by Anon00:
Unfortunately for Symantec, that may be the mentality of the people experiencing this problem.
Well, I hope so and demanding a refund until it's fixed wouldn't hurt either. We have been forced to accept deficient products for so long that no one even asks "why should I have to" anymore. The software companies, in their rush to beat or stay current with the competition, have been forcing us, for years, to accept as normal, the proposition that we should expect any product they put on the market to be defective in some way. Now I understand, as well as anyone, how difficult it is to engineer a program that is completely bug free; I'm not suggesting this. I am trying to point out that this type of problem and the company's method for correcting it is, to me, just another sign of how little regard they have for their customers and their autocratic attitudes regarding their moral responsibilities to them. I am not bashing Symantec, MS or any other company but I think it's high time for reform and the only way that will happen is when customers stand together and say enough is enough.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20
[text was edited by author 2003-11-01 18:22:59] | |
| said by javaMan:
said by Anon00:
Unfortunately for Symantec, that may be the mentality of the people experiencing this problem.
Well, I hope so and demanding a refund until it's fixed wouldn't hurt either.
Symantec offers a no-questions-asked full refund for any product returned within 60 days of purchase. I know this is so, I've returned some myself {NPF 2001, the firewall, was one}. I think this is a pretty liberal policy and one doesn't find such flexibility with too many big companies. {Most don't allow a two-month "grace" period like that}.
said by javaMan:
We have been forced to accept deficient products for so long that no one even asks "why should I have to" anymore.
Again .. the return policy has been in effect for longtime, so no one is being forced to permanently accept their purchases, assuming they can make up their minds within 60 days .. LOL.
said by javaMan:
The software companies, in their rush to beat or stay current with the competition, have been forcing us, for years, to accept as normal, the proposition that we should expect any product they put on the market to be defective in some way.
Well, Symantec have a fairly long "beta-test" period, compared to most. The betas have been fairly well-publicized in several threads here at DSLR .. the beta for NAV 2004 especially. It is pretty easy to join the beta test team too, for anyone who is interested .. certainly the new betas are made available to the public for a season, for testing, with the caveat that they are "beta" .. LOL.
said by javaMan:
Now I understand, as well as anyone, how difficult it is to engineer a program that is completely bug free; I'm not suggesting this.
LOL let's hope not, otherwise nothing new {no new software} gets published for fear it isn't "perfect" enough. I might add, something I'm sure you know is true: it is nigh impossible to forsee every possible combination of OS/hardware/software configuration represented by the vast user-base out there.
Sometimes I'm sure a developer must reach a stopping point and say: "OK we've beta-tested on X number of machines & systems, but there is a chance that machine X+1 will reveal a problem .. but we've reached our established XMAX {= 5000, or 7000, etc} testing limit and have to release the 'finished' product to the public now."
said by javaMan:
I am trying to point out that this type of problem and the company's method for correcting it is, to me, just another sign of how little regard they have for their customers and their autocratic attitudes regarding their moral responsibilities to them.
Whoa javaMan  , you were doing good until this: where does that 'judgment' come from? What is 'autocratic' here? Where is the lack of moral responsibility? Help us out; I don't get it. Symantec have SIX Company Reps here at DSLReports that I know of, who are registered with BBR and who follow product-related threads {actually seven, I just got IM couple days ago from someone else who is monitoring threads here}. Does anyone know of another Company with greater presence and representation in this Forum? I fail to see the irresponsibility or moral failure, at least it isn't any worse response than other vendors, and in my view is better than most. I especially commend antdude for his faithful labor in the threads here at DSLR, helping his customers with problems.
said by javaMan:
I am not bashing Symantec, MS or any other company but I think it's high time for reform and the only way that will happen is when customers stand together and say enough is enough.
Fair enough, but when you label a company "not moral" or "autocratic" in one sentence, then say you aren't opposing the company in the next .. well, that is inconsistent .. both can't be true. 
[text was edited by author 2003-11-01 19:16:53] | |
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to javaMan
said by javaMan:
Well, I hope so and demanding a refund until it's fixed wouldn't hurt either. We have been forced to accept deficient products for so long that no one even asks "why should I have to" anymore. The software companies, in their rush to beat or stay current with the competition, have been forcing us, for years, to accept as normal, the proposition that we should expect any product they put on the market to be defective in some way. Now I understand, as well as anyone, how difficult it is to engineer a program that is completely bug free; I'm not suggesting this. I am trying to point out that this type of problem and the company's method for correcting it is, to me, just another sign of how little regard they have for their customers and their autocratic attitudes regarding their moral responsibilities to them. I am not bashing Symantec, MS or any other company but I think it's high time for reform and the only way that will happen is when customers stand together and say enough is enough.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20
Informative post javaMan.
I honestly think the problem lies, not with the software programmers, but the hardware vendors who sell INFERIOR hardware.
I have always bought (and sometimes haven't bought, ::shudder:: ) the most stable hardware I could find. I wouldn't recommend it to my friends who trust my judgement if I wouldn't run it myself.
I have never had most of the problems I see posted like the Symantec Activation problem. Neither have my friends who buy what I recommend.
I think most of the software "problems" lie, (with a few exceptions, the Win 9x series being the MAJOR one), with the stupidity and "cheapness" of the end user.
After all, if you buy a $399 dollar PC with a $100 dollar mail-in-rebate, which most families would FLOCK to, what do you expect?
--
Edwards in 2004 | |
|
