🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jmjo8INN4qc@post.its.mcw.edu>, ttrusk@its.mcw.edu (Thomas Trusk) writes:
|> In article <jcmorris.727537460@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
|> >akm@atlantix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
|> >
|> >>I thought that folks reading this thread should know that Infowrold
|> >>has a front page article that talks about Gateway's poor support. This
|> >>is in the current (1/18/93) issue.
|> >
|> >  [details deleted]
|> >
|> >The _Wall_Street_Journal_ ran an article earlier this week (Monday or
|> >Tuesday; I'm not sure which) saying pretty much the same thing.  The
|> >call volume figures quoted are amazing.
|> >
|> 
|> My most recent issue of PC Magazine reports a reader's survey 
|> that ranks Gateway ABOVE average in all categories. This tells me 2 things.
|> 
|> Either:
|> 
|> 1. the readers of PC mag have more technical common sense obviating the
|>    need to call the bonehead 'support' people, or
|> 
|> 2. PC Mag way, way, way, way, behind the times. Pretty sad for a journal published
|>    twice a month.

You forgot the third possiblility, that gateway get is right 80% of the
time and the 20% who have problems make a lot of noise.