June 1, 2000 | 02 05 04 61 00060101 |
Mr. Mark A-MHIDD
Technician
managers@microsoft.com
Windows 2000 Support
Microsoft Corporation
16011 NE 36th Way
Box 97017
Redmond, WA 98073 9717
Subject: | Demand for Product Support, Windows 2000 |
Dear Mark,
This letter is sent to managers@microsoft.com, but addressed to Mark, in order to establish a chain of responsibility.
Mark did a good job answering our telephone request on May 24, 2000, for technical support on issues we have reported to Microsoft the past few days about installation and use of Windows 2000. While Mark was unable to solve any of these problems due to Microsoft policies, his courtesy and willingness to listen reflect the kind of professional customer service we have come to expect from Microsoft the past 15 years in solving problems installing and using Microsoft operating systems for IBM compatible personal computers. However, Microsoft's new policy disclosed on May 24, 2000 of not supporting the customer and charging confiscatory prices is incorrect and conflicts with Microsoft's duty to perform reasonable support services, and maintain a viable working environment, as a vendor with dominate market control.
To orient review of this letter, the main purpose is to complain that Windows 98 was a defective product, which forced upgrading to Windows 2000 in order to obtain the benefit of the bargain Microsoft promised in selling Windows 98 and prior versions; but, Microsoft has failed to support Windows 2000 at comparable prices to that for Windows 98 and prior versions, in that...
The basis of this claim to entitlement is as follows...
On March 10, 2000 we upgraded our motherboard and installed Windows 2000 on our computer c11. This was done because of repeated failures in February where Windows 98 was showing a blue screen failure on exit and on startup, and further because the mouse and keyboard suddenly stopped functioning. Recommendations we received from Microsoft and other vendors were to upgrade to Microsoft 2000 and get a new motherboard, changing from Asus to Intel, in order to get a reliable system. Research resulted in many reports that Windows 98 had known problems, which could not be solved with upgrades of Windows 98, and that Windows 2000 is a more stable environment. This was disappointing because we had used Windows 98 for a year or so, with only occasional crashes. But suddenly on February 11, 2000 repeated and severe failures began to occur. We could not use the keyboard nor the mouse in order to even attempt a solution. After several hours, suddenly the system worked for awhile, but the next day the system would not come out of suspend mode. Experts advised this was a problem with Widows 98 Edition one, so we upgraded to Edition two. When the problem occurred again, using Windows 98 Edition 2, we were forced to install Windows 2000 in order to obtain a reliable system.
We need a reliable system, because we use the computer to manage the work by applying Communication Metrics. When the computer fails, we cannot manage the work, because there is no means to generate, integrate, organize, align and summarize new information into the history that supports understanding and decision making. As a result, mistakes and delay go up, earnings suffer.
In order to use the computer to support management, it has to be configured in certain ways that facilitate manipulating and preserving information, conveying it to others, and analysing and aligning information to produce knowledge and ideas. We depend on Microsoft to provide a stable environment that makes this possible. In simplest terms, the operating system on the computer, though perhaps unintended by Microsoft, expands the power of the alphabet as a stable, baseline set of capabilities that can be relied upon to facilitate growing critical knowledge when applied in certain ways. Over the past 15 years we have learned how to accomplish a stronger form of converting information into knowledge, based on a core competency with the Microsoft operating system.
Core competency, however, requires a stable environment, like the alphabet, otherwise it is transitory, rather than core. Certainly Microsoft can innovate to come up with new "words" (using the alphabet analogy); but, it should not eliminate nor change core "punctuation" and "spelling" of prior application, because people have arranged their lives and businesses over many years to apply the baseline features.
On March 11, 2000 we installed Windows 2000, and since then, the prior problems with Windows 98 have not occurred. This indicates that Windows 2000 solved the prior failures in the Windows 98 program. Microsoft is congratulated for continuing to improve the reliability of its products.
We purchased Windows 2000 from a trusted vendor along with an upgraded motherboard and an additional 128 MB of RAM. Later this vendor advised that it supplied an OEM version of W2K. We demanded the retail version, since the OEM version specifically states it is for a new computer, and we do not have a new computer, we have a used computer. The vendor maintained that there is no advantage to getting the retail version because Microsoft does not provide the standard 90 day support for getting started, as has been done with past versions.
Microsoft Charges Confiscatory Support Rates
Yesterday, however, we received a letter from Microsoft under the signature block of Vanno, who expressly states that Microsoft does provide 90 day support, but thereafter Microsoft wants $300 per incident for telephone support and $200 per incident for email support. Since we have about 10 or so incidents, this could be $3,000, or 100 times the cost of the program. Based upon past practice, this is a confiscatory charge that conflicts with Microsoft's duty to support its products, on which we relied in making the purchase.
Naturally, a threshold question arises with respect to the meaning of "incident." We have a number of questions on configuring Windows 2000 beginning with partitioning the hard drive and identifying the directory for the operating system. All 10 or so incidents could be considered a single incident of "installation" issues. But each issue could just as well be a separate incident. In any event, Microsoft's pricing conflicts with its history upon which we reasonably relied, and are entitled to rely, by virtue of Microsoft's market position as the only supplier of a world-wide standard computer operating system for conducting daily business.
We believe Microsoft should take the lead in resolving this issue, rather than the OEM vendor. Microsoft has a team of experts on Windows 2000, who have access to the people who wrote the program. The OEM does not have those resources. It is busy calling on other customers to make new sales, and can only occasionally respond to technical issues. Further, Microsoft did not disclose in its advertising offering Windows 2000 that its support policy was any different than for Windows 98. While Microsoft did disclose that Windows 2000 was not intended as a replacement or upgrade for Windows 98, Microsoft had a continuing duty to correct the defects in Windows 98, and since Windows 2000 is the only way to do that, representations to the contrary conflict with the record showing that in fact Windows 2000 solved the prior failures of Windows 98 (see the record on March 18, 2000).
Pending IssuesAccordingly, we demand that Microsoft provide 90 days of support, beginning with the following issues...
This error is not terribly expository. There is no evident impact on program functioning, however, it needs to be removed. Only Microsoft can do this, as further explained in the record on May 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
THE WELCH COMPANY
Rod Welch
rowelch@attglobal.net
Copy to: