🚀 go-pugleaf

Just want to make a statement. I don't want to cause flame here, just
showing some facts. The only thing Borland should've said from the beginning
is that JBuilder 2 supports JDK 1.1.7, not JDK 1.2 like the box, manuals and
web site said. Many people that I know bought the product for the 1.2
features, we really don't care anymore about 1.1.6 or 1.1.7 because is
already deprecated, and we receive a handicapped product instead.  To give
you an example about what is a good advertisement just check this page on
Symantec. Please read it.. not to compare the products just as a
constructive customer service lesson..

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/devtools.nsf/docid/1998112315523205

Nobody would be angry right now with Borland if they were able to publish a
statement like the one Symantec did about their product with JBuilder 2.

What happens with us, we purchased a product for some quality that was
supposed to have and we are not able to use it, so we wasted our money for
nothing.




John Frazier (borland.com) <supportinfo@borland.com> wrote in message
news:37232523.39848178@forums.inprise.com...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:40:43 -0400, "Alexis Rios" <alexr@coqui.net>
> wrote:
>
> >We purchased JB2 because they (Borland) said that the product fully
supports
> >JDK 1.2 and it was a lie. So that is about $250.00 dollars to the trash
can.
> >I own JB2 and I am using the notepad to write my Java 2 programs, because
if
> >i do the same with JB2 the program will never run.
> >
> >If JB3 supports Java 2 finally, is the right thing to do for Borland, to
> >give us at least a free JB3 version so we can be happy or I won't buy
> >another Borland product ever.
> >
> >Tell your opinions,
> >
> >It's the truth and it's our money. Thanks for reading it
>
> This is not intended as a provocation or a flame of any type, just a
> reality check.
>
> This message is a pure troll that serves for nothing more than to
> provoke others to start a huge complaining session.  It is a low
> tactic and I know you are smart enough to know better.  That is why I
> answer like this:
>
> I think you've got to be kidding.  If I bought a product that said it
> would do something and it did, fine.  But when there are underlying
> factors like an ever-evolving JDK that neither Borland, you, or even
> Microsoft have any control over, what can you honestly do?  Borland
> did NOT lie to you nor did they set out to deceive you in any way.  It
> has been stated literally more than a hundred times in these
> newsgroups as to the specific reasons why the Java architecture
> changed (i.e. Swing/debug api).  Therefore it should be fairly simple
> for you or anybody else to do a search on www.dejanews.com to get all
> of the details.
>
> I leave you with a couple of thoughts to ponder.  Would you ask your
> local power company to provide you with free electrical products
> because your equipment was designed for a different country's power
> needs?  Would you ask your automobile manufacturer to give you a new
> sports utility off road vehicle for free because you moved to a place
> out in the country and your street ride wasn't suited for it?  Would I
> ask the builder of my house to build me a new one for free because I
> disliked the neighbors who moved in next door?
>
> I could go on for hours with analogies like these but I think you get
> the idea.  As a consumer myself, I would not expect free product
> compensation and don't feel that you should realistically expect it
> either.
>
> My point is that things change that are out of our control and as much
> as we would love to give out free product left and right, we are a
> business and must operate as such.  There is also plenty of new
> features and value to be had in the new version as well so it is not
> just Java2 development that you have to look forward to.
>
> Thank You,
>
> John Frazier (borland.com)
>
> http://www.borland.com/devsupport/disclaim.html