RUNREV Technical support

[Dave]

Hi Camm,

I totally agree the lack of support from RunRev has cost many really  
good projects. Projects that would have benefitted RunRev and  
therefore RunRev developers.

I find the support section of RunRev to be very dogmatic, narrow  
minded and lacking a "can-do" attitude. When I started using RunRev I  
was very warm spirited and supportive of the RunRev product, however,  
the lack of support and general lack of responsibility on the part of  
RunRuv over the years has leached this from me. Now I don't promote  
RunRev like I used to and instead of trying to think of ways to  
justify using RunRev as my priority I now look to other alternatives  
first.

In the end if you are contemptuousness breeds contempt.

All the Best
Dave

On 21 Jan 2009, at 13:20, <camm29 at tesco.net> <camm29 at tesco.net> wrote:

> These lists are great and many issues are solved by all  
> involved.Thank you.
> No complaints !
>
> My question is , what should we expect from RUNREV SUPPORT , you  
> know those
> guys who charge us for the Software !
>
> My experience since using Rev is lack of real support compared with  
> other Software suppliers.
>
> I have raised bugs and tickets etc..
>
> For 3 years myself and others wanted to use Serial Com ports > 9.
> Finally in Rev 3.0 this was corrected - a simple fix.
>
> Now I can't use Rev 3.0 due to a Answer Stack / Standalone Password  
> issue.
> There are bug reports and support request tickets with RUNREV , but  
> nearly all the
> help is coming from the list community.
>
> It may end up not a RUNREV Software issue , but all worked fine  
> before Rev 3.0.
> So who's looking into it ? what has changed in Rev 3.0 ? what does  
> the error message really mean (they wrote it) ?
> These are questions RUNREV should be working on or don't they  
> believe it happens ?
>
> I took some time to look at the BUG lists for RUNREV and that of  
> other software
> houses.
> Looking at dates and reports not actioned or addressed RUNREV was the
> worst by a long way.
>
> Have we become too soft !?
>
> Regards
> Camm
>