VP/ix could be good...

[Tom Betz]

Quoth root at mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) in <408 at mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US>:
|In article <5980005 at hplsla.HP.COM>, jeffh at hplsla.HP.COM (Jeff Harrell) writes:
|> 
|>     I WANT to use VP/ix! I like VP/ix! But, damm, is it gonna get fixed?
|
|I AGREE!  When *IS* it going to get fixed?  With the price that SCO charges
|for the product (a commercial $$$), shouldn't we expect more results?  
|Shouldn't we hear something from SCO and Interactive Systems as to what 
|progress is being made?  I have had my 1.1 release of VP/ix since September
|and, while a big improvement over the Controlled Release, it still is
|extremely choppy and prone to failure.  

I just got a taste of that myself when I tried to run WP 5.0 on top of
VP/ix.  The hang resulted in a loss of my machine, when I had to power 
down, and it wouldn't power back up.  I'm waiting for Wyse to set my hardware
to rights...

| [specific examples deleted...]
|but with all the key pounding I have to do to get it to work, my colleagues
|are less forgiving and persistent and give up when it locks up.   They 
|then insist I boot the DOS partition so they can get their work done
|without the interruptions of VP/ix.  They are NOT computer oriented people.
|They know enough to run their particular application, and that is *ALL*
|they WANT to know.  They should not have to put up with this, especially
|for the amount paid and the way SCO presented VP/ix.

I agree.  I bought VP/ix so we could make occasional use of WP and 
Supercalc on our 386 while evaluating Xenix-native OA packages and 
developing our Progress-based order-processing system.  Now it
appears I can not do so with any reliability, and I am not pleased.

|Don't get me wrong, I think VP/ix is a wonderful concept and I really like
|the program.  But I MUST be critical of the fact that SCO is marketting
|the product as a commercial piece of software, and it just doesn't deliver.
|It comes close (sometimes), but for the applications I need to run on it,
|close doesn't work at all, so for me, it is lost money.
|
|My point is, shouldn't we expect and see more from SCO in terms of getting
|VP/ix whipped into shape???  I am afraid that unless they get on the ball,
|future versions will be so heavily scrutinized by people that some won't
|even want to take the risk of buying is ($$$$) and finding that can't do
|the job for them.  I mean, why else buy it at that price?  Would you spend
|$500 for a DOS word processor that had the reliability factor of VP/ix
|and use it for processing law documents for law firm or a city court?

No.  I'd be pissed.

What I can't figure out is, why has SCO had so much trouble with this product
when the Sun 386i (which uses it built into the SunOS kernel) seems to 
run it flawlessly (from all reports I've read on it... anyone who has 
experience to the contrary, I'd like to hear from you).  I mean, do you have
to slow the OS down by 50% (as SunOS compares to Xenix on similar hardware)
to have a reliable implementation of VP/ix?

|SCO, please tell us what is going on!  They should either change their
|posture on VP/ix, OR get the thing updated and fixed in a much more timely
|manner and keep us updated at to where they are at.  Some of
|us who bought the product last Spring are *STILL* waiting for SCO to
|come through.  Like I said, it is a great product idea, but would YOU
|run it in a commercial office environment?  Isn't that what SCO has in 
|mind?

It is certainly what I was led to believe, and what I had in mind.  If this
ain't the case, I won't be using it long.

Waddya say, SCO?

-- 
"Big Bob says he's getting tired of you saying he |"Do you think God lets
 doesn't really exist."  - Fat Little Nerdy Kid - | you plea bargain?"
  Tom Betz - ZCNY - Yonkers, NY - 914-375-1514    |"I'd worry more about
...cmcl2!dasys1!tbetz  OR  ...uunet!dasys1!tbetz  | your mom."  - C & H