Conference 7.286::digital

I agree and expect the revenue decline indicated in the Quarterly
report to continue. We will be a much smaller company in both 
personnel and, correspondingly, in terms of revenue. It's all be
said before.

Don't know if your writing to solve this customer's problem or
[justifiably] venting but... 
	Have you tried your local Digital Consulting people. If they
don't have someone immediately they can usually farm out a third
party contractor (and still make a profit). Failing that there are
plenty of hungry software contractors around so at least the
customer's problem gets resolved.

    
    
    re .2
    
    
    just venting....but still working on a way to get this customers
    problem resolved and maybe generate some revenue doing it....
    :-(

    What you LORed (Local Office Referal) customer for Consulting 
    Opportunity and the local office was not able to get someone on site???
    If this was the case (local office) they could elevate this to a 
    district resource.  I thought this was SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) 
    and this is how the CSC gets these issues out to the field to get a warm 
    body onsite.
    

    >    What you LORed (Local Office Referal) customer for Consulting
    >    Opportunity and the local office was not able to get someone on
    >site???
    >    If this was the case (local office) they could elevate this to a
    >    district resource.  I thought this was SOP (Standard Operating
    >Procedure)
    >    and this is how the CSC gets these issues out to the field to get a
    >    warm body onsite.
    
    
    Sorry,
    
    But talking to the field there's no one home, 
    
    	1) Digital Services (read field Service) was hit hard...
    	2) District and Regional Support was hit hard...
    
    We cannot LOR too much these days because there isn't a resource
    to PUT on site...
    
    take me back to 82...
    
    

Try the Systems Engineering Group, John Bressler.

    re: .0
    
    What patch does he want.  I'll send it to him.
    
    If this issue is important enough to put into notes, you should have
    elaborated on what problem specifically the customer is having. 
    Instead all I see is some sob story about how this guy is bent out of
    shape and our patch systems stink.  You didn't mention the whole story, 
    but from what I can gather, the situation is ludicrous and doesn't need
    to be happening.
    
    If this is such a problem and a critical concern, etc... you'd think
    this persons account rep (if he has one) would give him a modem and
    access to DSNlink so he can download all the patches he wants.  Give
    him a phone line too for crying out loud... for about $500 it sounds like 
    we're jeopordizing a huge amount of business.
    
    From what you wrote, I can see no reason for this to be happening to
    him.  Off the top of my head, this customer can get "a patch" at least
    4 different ways.  Someone on this end dropped the ball.  Someone
    on this end should enlighten him that we're not that screwed up.  It
    sounds like you may be trying...
    
    Regards,
    MadMike                                     

    OK, I reread .0, the "patch" doesn't work on his version of VMS,
    but we have "1/2" of our machines running that version, so "there's
    still a solution".  And older patch? 
    
    Rather than zapping the patch to him, it takes n minutes to gather
    whatever he needs and zap it out.    

    RE: .7,.8
    
    The way I read .0 was that the patch DOESN'T EXIST for the version of
    the O/S that the customer is running, but it does exist for later
    versions, but that the customer can not upgrade to any later versions.
    
    What is needed is for someone to write a patch that will work on the
    customers version of the O/S.
    
    Deb 

    
    
    What I said was, there was no patch for the older version.
    There is a patch for the new version which will NOT install on the
    older version.
    The escalation went to engineering not the local office because this
    was a request to write a NEW patch for an unsupported version of the
    operating system. 
    Engineering does not have the manpower to write a patch for an
    unsupported version of an operating system.
    This was not an attempt to rag on engineering. It is not a sob story.
    It just really hit me that we are downsizing ourselves right out of
    business.......
    
    We have not given up on finding a solution for this customer and his
    problem. We will just have to take a different approach....
    
    thanks for the concern. It's at least comforting to know that there are
    people out there who still care about a)the customer  b)Digitals
    reputation  c)generating revenue.  Too bad we're all on the bottom of
    an uphill battle.....

    I was once onsite with a customer who wanted to do 'strange' things to
    VMS (change the username stored in the JIB (job information block)
    dynamically) to support one of their security policies.  I hacked up
    some kernel mode macro code to do this, and they signed off on a
    document that this WAS NOT SUPPORTED from the engineering perspective.
    
    It still works (no, they haven't added spinlock support, they just 
    don't run SMP for this application...).  DCS used to have the kind of
    resources that could cobble up patches, macro codes etc...  I'm not
    sure they do anymore... I deserted DC for sales support a few years 
    ago....
    
    However, if they are willing to pay whatever it'll take, surely this 
    needs to be elevated to Brebach ASAP to get whatever resources are
    needed to 'get it done'!

Well who is saying no? There is no such thing as "engineering" that can say
no - just lots of individuals.

I don't know if this is VMS, but they keep a lot of old Baselevels
around. Most groups can come up with old Baselevels. They will usually 
have the capability if they lack the will [to generate a patch].

Try, tactfully, escalating within that organization. If that fails, and 
they are one of the 1000 customers then contact the Account Manager, else
get them to write/call Bob Palmer. I don't know if this latter route
still works but a "letter to Ken" was usually enough to sort something
like this out.

All this may still fail but at least you know that it is 'Digital' that
is saying no rather than some hard pressed individual.

Mark

	Well, let's just say, for example, that it was InfoServer Engineering. (It's
not.)  InfoServer Engineering is 2 people these days  We have 7 open CLDs, most
of them system crashers.  We're in the middle of Field Test for the next release.
Want to guess what would happen if some asked me for a patch for anything earlier 
than V3.1 (the last SSB version)?  I don't have the resources.  Now, I could trade
off the other engineer's time, except that he's working on system crashers...
How do I justtify pulling him off that work to work on something that could be
fixed by upgrading?

	Maybe if it's an easy fix, you can swing it, but say it's a driver problem.
The internal driver interfaces have changed a number of times and often you find
yourself carrying around 3 versions of the same code just to cover VMS versions
since V5.0.

	I think you should put out as much as you can for customers, but sometimes
there's little or no return (or even negative resturn for those customeers whose
systems are crashing running the current version of the software) in what you're
being asked to do, and then the answer is "no."  

								--Doug

Gee,  when I was in the CSC, specialists created and wrote patches all the
time.  Dating back to the days when I was a customer, I probably wrote a new
bug-fix or feature patch every two weeks.  There was one Sunday afternoon when
I wrote nine "paranoid mode" security patches for a customer in one sitting.

When I was a customer, working with one of the now-mods of this conference,
our policy was to publish our patches in the body of the SPR text.  By the
time I left the CSC, I was patching the physical IO layers of the operating
system.

Do you mean that a specialist in the CSC can't or won't take an hour to
retrofit an existing patch to an older version?  Maybe its because there's been
this engineering arrogance that the CSC folks can't know all of the nuances of
what they do, so they can't be trusted to do it.  Maybe its because Engineering
won't bless patches that they don't generate, leaving the customer to take
their chances.  Maybe it is because MCS business management sees it as
"engineering's job" as if "engineering" were some monolythic entity.

Oh yeah, the operating system was TOPS-20, not Digital's flagship operating
system.  It didn't matter, those were not VAXes or any other Digital
"minicomputer" or other sacred edifices.

Ms. Pitt, I would elevate the problem directly to Al Snyder and get someone to
reimplement the bug fix.

BobW

    part of the changes that have been going on appear to be the move away
    from a real 'patch' (where one would change the instructions in an
    existing image or running system) to a replacement image.  In most
    cases, the CSCPAT 'patch' kits include new images that include the
    fixes.  for systems like AXPs, it is very difficult to create patches
    that are much more complex that replacing an instruction or two.  
    
    One of the many DEC standards even prohibits 'paper' patches - an
    installable kit must be supplied.  This kit might actually go patch an
    existing image or might supply a new one instead.

        If all else fails, try posting a request for help in 
        NOTED::HACKERS.  Seventies or Nineties ... standards 
        or not ... we owe our customers our support.  I'd give
        your problem a shot myself if I thought I had the skills.

        Terry

 <<< Note 3273.16 by DEMON::PILGRM::BAHN "Curiouser and Curiouser ..." >>>
                 -<  If all else fails, ...  >-

re. .16:

	This wouldn't hurt even while you are trying other
	avenues.

>
>        If all else fails, try posting a request for help in 
>        NOTED::HACKERS.  Seventies or Nineties ... standards 
>	 .....

	Lew

    heck steve, go to hackers and describe, in detail, the entire problem
    (what the patch is, what the version of the operating system is, etc.). 
    I'm certain that someone can figure it out.
    
    >    Our posisition: We don't have the time or the manpower. sorry.
    
    I'm not sure who 'our' is in this case.  I suspect that the energy
    spent on this notes thread already is as much as figuring out the patch
    would be.

    Any possibility of providing support to the customer to upgrade to
    a supported version ?.
    
    Joe

    >    Any possibility of providing support to the customer to upgrade to
    >a supported version ?.
    
    Great going Joe! And, before someone states that the upgrade is too
    expensive for the customer (it was stated that there was a willingness
    to pay for some support), an allowance should be granted to bring the
    price in line.

This is hardly a new situation. I've seen a number of customers who want
to add some new device to an old version of VMS that "They can't upgrade."
I've heard the "I'll pay what it costs" before too. Lots of times.

When you do a little investigation, it turns out that A, the customer is
running some antique version of a program they bought from someone else
and it won't work on newer VMS (and it should...) or B, they wrote something
themselves and the guy that wrote it is long gone and they have no clue as
to how to upgrade it and/or VMS. Sometimes it's C, they have no intention
of buying licenses from DEC for the upgraded VMS.

I've seen C a lot.

If you try to get 'em to upgrade their application or VMS, it's almost
always "It costs too much." This seems to conflict with the whatever it
costs attitude about creating the new patch.

A little more investigation shows that they'll pay whatever it costs to
spend an hour or so putting together a patch for their problem. When
the fact that it can run days or even weeks to produce the patch is
pointed out, the problem usually goes away.

You try to support whatever the customer wants to do. You try to do it
as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Every now and then, you run
into someone who's trying to beat the system at your expense. It's this
last bunch that you have to learn to draw the line against.

re .14

>Do you mean that a specialist in the CSC can't or won't take an hour to
>retrofit an existing patch to an older version?  

We get slapped on the hands and if we continue to do this we get slapped 
upside the head.  Specialist have been specifically told "You are not in 
the patch buisness.  Figure out what is wrong if you can but leave the 
fixes up to the group responsible for the product."

    Someone has a problem and so do I.   My problem is I don't know who to
    send this to in order to make sure it gets addressed.  This topic seems
    to be on this subject (customers can't get the help they seem to want,
    so give up.)
    
    I'll tell you what we (Digital OEM Storage) would have done *before*
    being bought by Quantum:   If this were *my* product (I was the
    firmware project leader for the recent 3.5" drives) I personally would
    have called the customer and talked to him, and given him the name and
    number of an applications engineer.  That AE also gets this customer's
    name and number.  (Mind you, I'm the engineer, not a customer support
    rep.)  Additionally, profuse apologies would be offered because "the
    system" didn't work, and the only way HE is getting our attention is by
    sending flame-o-grams to the net.
    
    The customer sees that someone is interested in *his* problem.
    
    My only problem is *I* don't do printers, and neither do I know anyone
    who does.
    
    So would someone who watches this conference (there seem to be more
    than a few of you) please see that this genelemen's concerns about
    *his* [friend's] printer  are answered?   And assure him that we care?
    And maybe he'll post something back to this newsgroup that there is
    someone still at Digital that answers the phone and cares.
    
    
Article: 112786
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decuac.dec.com!haven.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!concert!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!hub.cs.jmu.edu!newsusr
From: FAC_SCROSS@vax1.acs.jmu.edu (SAMUEL G CROSS)
Subject: DECLaser 5100
Message-ID: <CtKx00.7op@hub.cs.jmu.edu>
Sender: newsusr@hub.cs.jmu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: James Madison University
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 03:14:23 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS v1.25
Lines: 13
 
A friend ordered a DECLaser 5100--the 600x600 model upgradable to 1200 x 1200.
The damned thing just would not work. The PowerMac could not recognize the
printer. Sometimes by throwing away the PS driver's preferences file and
restarting, it would recognize the printer for about 50 pages. The company was
absolutely no help whatsoever. I am positive that nothing was wrong with the
system software or the hard drive. Anyone have any experience with this printer
or with Digital? Their service sucks! It's a shame, because they advertise
1200x1200 for under $2,500.00
 
Sam Cross
Professor of Music, James Madison University
No snappy quote or logo
 

	Before we all go out and start getting pumped for a lynching,
	could someone PLEASE describe, in detail, the problem the
	customer is seeing. It may be something incredibly simple where
	no patch or replacement .EXE is needed.

	Really people, lets not put the cart before the horse until
	after we've found out what's wrong with the horse.

						mike
						

    
    
    re .14
    
    Bob, if you can tell me how to figure out the problem and write the
    patch without the source code, give me a call and we can work on this 
    problem.
    
    re .24
    
    Ultrix.....not VMS, so you're right, no replacement .exe is needed. 
    
    FYI, the customer is, as we speak, being helped thru an upgrade to 
    the current supported version.

    
    Re .23:
    
    Perhaps a cross-posting in the ONTIME::ANSI_PRINTING conference
    (couldn't find an appropriate note) might get some help; or a scan of
    that conference might at least yield some names for a more directed
    inquiry.
    

    Maybe you could get some action thru the USWRSL::911 conference.   Read
    1 for instructions...
    

    re: .23, .26, .27
    
    I just forwarded note .23 to the product manager for the DEClaser 5100,
    Dave MROA::Belliveau.  I do not work in that group, so don't expect me
    to follow up, but I hope Dave can.
    
    I *used to* work in an associated group, and I can guarantee that .23
    does not describe their standard way of doing business.  Of course, to
    a customer anyone with a badge is "Digital" (something we should all
    remember!) and one can't tell from the newsgroup posting to whom this
    customer was talking.  My experiences with the official support
    channels for such products makes me believe he never got in touch with
    them, but somebody apparently dropped the ball in finding the right
    channels for him.
    
    Thanks to the noter of .23 for putting this *somewhere* to get
    somebody's attention.  I hope "the right things" happen from here on.
    
    FYI - the best conference is ONTIME::POSTSCRIPT_PRINTING.  But
    something like this needs personal escalation.  I wonder why the field
    contact didn't submit an IPMT case for fastest (official) service. 
    Those guys in C&PBU/VIPS/HardCopy takes IPMTs very seriously.
    
    -Mark

    [I haven't been reading this conference lately but I got forwarded .23
     from at least three different people today.]
    
    I've also contacted the person who posted to the Internet directly via
    electronic mail although since he posted about "a friend's" problem it
    could be days before we get this one resolved.

    Re: .25 CSC32::Pitt & .22 CSC32::M_Jilson
    
    You've exactly captured my point.  We have fine, talented people who
    would be happy to fix the customer but they are hampered by lack of
    tools (such as source code) and processes ("not our job").
    
    I am awestruck that Microsoft is giving away Windows NT sources to
    Universities, but MCS has decided that support people don't need them. 
    
    'Course, when I worked in the CSC, I had sources to both OSs I
    supported.
    
    BobW

    RE: .15

    >>> for systems like AXPs, it is very difficult to create patches
    >>> that are much more complex that replacing an instruction or two.  

Yea, patching is pretty difficult for AXP, especially since there is *no*
VMS patch utility for AXP!  I wanted to port the VAX Patch utility to
Alpha, but management won't let me, even though 90% of the work has 
already been done in my free time.


						-Paul

re: .30
    
>    You've exactly captured my point.  We have fine, talented people who
>    would be happy to fix the customer but ...
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We do indeed have many fine, talented people, but I didn't know we        
had any veterinarians on the payroll!  :-)

>>    You've exactly captured my point.  We have fine, talented people who
>>    would be happy to fix the customer but ...
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>We do indeed have many fine, talented people, but I didn't know we        
>had any veterinarians on the payroll!  :-)

Wow!... I knew medical coverage was getting a little thin, but have we really 
given up MD's for Vets?   (Or are our customers really animals?)

8^)

      >>> (Or are our customers really animals?)

          Do we still have a "Customer Training" Center?  Maybe we need 
          to focus more of our resources in that direction.

    yes... we DO still have a "Customer Training" Center...
    
    We are alive and (not-so) well.  
    
    tony
    who works as an instructor for "Digital Learning Services"

    Re: .23 et al
    
    Just to follow up here in case anyone is interested. Bad news. 
    
    I got word from the original poster just a few minutes ago that the
    friend has "just sent [the printer] back." To quote the mail I
    received, "The problem is that your company virtually has no technical
    help. The people who called her were rude."

    Would a moderator or the basenote author care to change the spelling
    of the second word of the title?  
    

    well i could be several mis spllings of that word.....such as
    MESS, (think that was the one you were thinking of, but MISS 
    works just as well!)
    
    MOSS would be the one I would think of.  And it sure ain't critical.
    
    p/t
    

    Thanks to those who jumped at this.  Thanks to you, we have a happy
    customer and an atta-boy!
    
    
Article: 114763
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!decwrl!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!concert!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!hub.cs.jmu.edu!newsusr
From: FAC_SCROSS@vax1.acs.jmu.edu (SAMUEL G CROSS)
Subject: DECLaser5100 Again
Message-ID: <Cu78Kn.BJt@hub.cs.jmu.edu>
Sender: newsusr@hub.cs.jmu.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: James Madison University
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 04:31:35 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS v1.25
Lines: 15
 
About 2 weeks ago I reported on a dismal experience a friend had with DECLaser 
5100 and about the company's unwillingness to rectify the problem. In response 
to that posting, the people at Digital made exceptional strides to rectify the 
situation. My friend has another printer that works perfectly. It was 
personally checked out by technicians and the head of tech support. It is a 
great printer. It is upgradable to 1200 x 1200 resolution, although that is not 
currently available. I hope the upgrade becomes a reality. My friend is doing 
engraving for a major music publisher, and the publisher accepted the DEC, even 
at 600 x 600 as "camera ready." I hope that the exceptional service after the 
horrendous problem is typical of Digital. I hope that they actually do bring 
out the resolution upgrade.
Sam Cross
Fac_SCROSS@vax1.acs.jmu.edu
No fancy logo--so snappy quote
 

    The structural problems that led to the original dissatisfaction from
    Professor Cross' "friend" are being worked. (Basically, the "wrong"
    hotline was called and the person answering had no information on 
    the DEClaser 5100.)
                                                                           
    Professor Cross tends to exaggeration in his posts, an unfortunate
    characteristic of many using the Information Firehose. I'm of mixed
    emotions upon seeing that posting. Upon actually contacting the friend,
    there was no assertion of an "unwillingness" on our part to fix things.
    
    The upgrade will come out.

    Of course, I keep forgetting it's the customers fault. Fancy phoning
    the "wrong" hotline, what a silly customer.
    
    Ian.

    re: .42
    
    I was gonna say the same thing, only somewhat more crudely.
    
    --bonnie

    re: .42 & .43
    
    Ease up, folks.  I'm sure he said "wrong" in quotes to indicate that
    you shouldn't take it at face value.  I know noter .41, and I'm sure
    he's as ticked off as you are.  He just didn't feel like launching into
    a lengthy diatribe at this time.  (Besides, his diatribes are usually
    short. :-) )
    
    Please, don't assume every nuance not spoonfed to the reader means the
    noter is too stupid to realize it.  Some folks just have other things
    to do with their time.
    
>    -< hot line should at least know where to transfer.. >-
    
    Yes, that's the key point of failure, it seems.  The noter was not
    trying to say anything else.
    
    -Mark

    >         -< hot line should at least know where to transfer.. >-
    
    Actually, the problem is that they don't always. Too often, the desk
    that gets the customer's call originally does not route it to the
    group that has expertise in the particular product set - Desktop
    Printers, in this case. I've had a number of complaints, usually from
    the local account rep, about a customer getting non-help at a CSC, only 
    to find, upon investigation, that the call had been mis-directed to a
    group that has expertise in Line Printers. Why the person that got the
    call did not re-direct it, is another problem.
    
    Marie
    
    

Hey, I would do something about it, but it ain't my department.

    I think we all have to be sensitive to this type of issue, but it's
    going to get worse.  I had a local office refer an end user to
    1-800-DEC-SALE (we don't handle E/U's) because there were no sales
    reps in the office to handle this customer.
    
    I DID handle the call because I could sense his frustration and I
    knew he probably fell into that category of customer who would be
    handled by an authorized distributor under the new plan.  What happens
    if the local offices do not have people there who can transition this
    type of customer?  He gave me the name of the DEC person he usually
    calls and she is in MCS.  When I asked why he would call her on a
    SW licensing issue he said it was because he couldn't get anyone else
    to handle him locally and "usually" this person should scrounge an
    answer for him.  Unfortunately, she is out on STD so he got bounced
    around that office.
    
    I answered his questions and transferred him to 1-800-DIGITAL to place
    the order (I explained this would probably be the best method for him to
    use in the future).  I also suggested that he should continue to call
    MCS rep X to put that software on contract once he's received it.  My
    gut tells me I'll be hearing from this customer again (he insisted on
    getting the correct spelling of my name) :-)  He thanked me very
    enthusiastically stating I was the first person who has ever been able
    to give him a clear explanation of licensing policy surrounding "hot"
    and "cold" software backup.
    
    I also called the local office back to see what their instructions
    were (DEC-SALE would not be able to handle a flood of calls from
    end users).  I "bounced" along the same path I assume the caller did
    and eventually got to a group secretary.  After I explained the sit-
    uation she asked me how she was supposed to know where to send this
    customer?  I didn't know what to tell her.  She seemed to think
    1-800-DEC-SALE was a more logical place to send a customer to get
    pre-sales questions answered and place an order thather than 1-800-DIGITAL
    :-)
    

    It is a sad day in the field because of no clear direction on this
    issue. The question was asked as how to handle that and I did not get a
    clear answer. I still don`t know how to handle this issue and the
    question was asked a week ago.

    Karen:
    
    I can understand your frustration and also the customer's frustration. 
    We have a customer whom a local sales manager wouldn't assign a rep to
    and began ordering thru DecDirect.  When there were issues, after
    failing to get them resolved either thru MCS or DecDirect, they
    'discovered' the name of a sales rep I support who is very proactive
    and customer oriented.  She went out of her way, understanding this
    isn't even her account, and assisted the customer through the
    difficulties.  Now that customer will be faxing her orders into our
    office and we'll get them processed.  Still awaiting word if the rep
    will get the certs, but the customer is married to Digital
    technology-wise and SOMEONE has to do the right thing and help out.
    
    Ron