Banned from the PowerBASIC forum
Thomas Gohel
Hello,
I'm bannend from the PowerBASIC forums, due the following article: ;-)
--- Cut ----------------------------------------------------------
> I just fired up PBWIN 8.0 (updated to 8.02)
It's a know problem with all PB/Win 7.0/8.0 and PC/CC 3.0/4.0
compilers on newer computers.
> "Cannot access resource compiler results" error.
Should be an "Cannot access compiler results".
> Computer is a laptop (1GHz P3, 512MB RAM, WinXP SP2 all current
> updates).
Same here on two Dell Notebooks (Precision & Latidute), WinXP only,
all current updates, no virenscanner and other stuff.
> Any help/ideas would be appreciated!
PB/Win 6.0 & PB/CC v2.0 is still working. ;-)
I've debugged the errors a little bit and that's definitely a bug in the
16bit Compiler and the Longfilename-Hack in these compilers. Why?
The 16bit Compiler creates broken direcory entries, like these ...
T BAT 42 21.05.07 15:39
T2 BAT 38 19.06.07 22:08
TEST BAS 77 20.05.07 19:29
TET~1 EXE 5632 16.08.07 16:28
TET~1 LOG 524 16.08.07 16:28
on Win32
21.05.2007 15:39 42 T.BAT
19.06.2007 22:08 38 T2.BAT
20.05.2007 19:29 77 TEST.BAS
16.08.2007 16:28 5.632 TE?T.exe
16.08.2007 16:28 524 TE?T.log
--- Cut End ------------------------------------------------------
The truth is hard. Shame on you Bob, for your discussion stil and your
censorship.
See in the next days on the startpages of my 5 PowerBASIC related
domains. Google is still alive ...
Regards,
--------------
/ h o m a s
--
email : sup...@gohel.de / go...@basicguru.de (PGP-Key available)
www : http://www.gohel.de / http://www.pbhq.de (PowerBASIC)
fax/bbs: +49-30-47300910 (VFC, V34+, X75, ISDN, CCB, 9600-128000bps)
Happy Trails
wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm bannend from the PowerBASIC forums, due the following article: ;-)
>
Why not see it for the opportunity it presents, and get some
discussion and interaction started here again. The pb forums have
killed this newsgroup.
ROBERT ZALE
"Thomas Gohel" <go...@basicguru.de> wrote in message
news:AP4Fg...@basicguru.de...
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm bannend from the PowerBASIC forums, due the following article: ;-)
Actually, Thomas, that's not quite accurate. You were asked to temporarily
suspend posting to the PowerBASIC Forums for two reasons: Copyright issues
and posting of inaccurate information to our forums.
Over past months, we have written to you more than 20 times regarding
PowerBASIC Copyright issues. You have not responded in any way. Also, you
have posted inaccurate technical information which would tend to mislead
PowerBASIC customers. As misinformation serves no reasonable purpose, it
has been removed. As recently as a few hours ago, you were invited to
discuss the issue in a businesslike fashion, but so far, these invitations
were also ignored.
In case you have not read the published policies of the PowerBASIC Forums,
please allow me to remind you that they are moderated forums, and they are
the private property of PowerBASIC, Inc. I once again suggest that you
contact PowerBASIC, Inc. so that we may try to find a way for you to rejoin
the PowerBASIC community in a timely fashion.
Best regards,
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.
Thomas Gohel
Hello ROBERT,
> Over past months, we have written to you more than 20 times regarding
> PowerBASIC Copyright issues.
Nice try, nice joke, Bob. You should change your ISP ...
> You have not responded in any way.
See above ...
Otherwise, if you have problems with my PowerBASIC licenses, when you
should ask your german distributor for all my serial numbers.
> Also, you have posted inaccurate technical information which would
> tend to mislead PowerBASIC customers.
Fact is: PowerBASIC/Win 7.0/8.0 and PowerBASIC/CC 3.0/4.0 are not longer
working under a lot of current PC models/configurations (Intel Core Duo
CPUs, SATA and WinXP). That's a direct result of the 16bit design of
all current PowerBASIC compilers and the internal longfilename function.
Older PowerBASIC compilers (without internal LFN support) are working
still perfect, without faulty directory entries
I've reported that a lots of months ago to Josef, no response or a
response like "not know") from your site, he said. At first, I'm having
no problems with this answer and I'd a lot of sorrow with my child in
the last three months and not enough spare time, but I think, other
users do have right to know about problems with your product (and a
solution too, of course).
> As misinformation serves no reasonable purpose, it has been removed.
Your problem and my five know workarounds for this problems are now
lost, during the edit and your ban of my post to your forum.
I fixed that problem on my notebook (Dell Precision) and on an other
notebook (Dell Latitude) on my friend. Ok, that are misinformations,
flames, etc. ;-)
> As recently as a few hours ago, you were invited to discuss the issue in
> a businesslike fashion, but so far, these invitations were also ignored.
I have other interests than writing answers to your specific mail between
midnight and breakfast, so that?
> In case you have not read the published policies of the PowerBASIC
> Forums, please allow me to remind you that they are moderated forums,
> and they are the private property of PowerBASIC, Inc. I once again
> suggest that you contact PowerBASIC, Inc. so that we may try to find
> a way for you to rejoin the PowerBASIC community in a timely fashion.
We should honest discuss problems and in public with the compiler and
other tools. That's what I'm offer to my own costumers and that's what
I'm except from others, too. Where's the problem: satisfied costumers,
motivated costumers or loyal PowerBASIC users?
Personal note: English is not my mother tongue. You should write your
post in german, preferably. So we could prevent some mistakes. ;-)
PS: And it's not any problem with the length of paths and environments
of the command line.
Best wishes,
Happy Trails
wrote:
>Personal note: English is not my mother tongue. You should write your
>post in german, preferably. So we could prevent some mistakes. ;-)
Thomas,
You started this in English, and this newsgroup has traditional been
an English language one. Please continue any posts in English.
b...@powerbasic.com
performance, and support after the sale. How many others offer free
technical support today? Few, if any. Of course, it should be noted
that we have a distinct advantage: With the best reliability rate in
the industry, PowerBASIC customers have far less need for technical
assistance than the others. That's the only reason it's possible. No
software product is 100.0% perfect, but we work very hard to get very
close to that goal.
So... what to do if you have a technical question? What to do if
you think there's a compatibility issue? What to do if you think
you've found a bug in PowerBASIC? It's simple. Just email
sup...@powerbasic.com with the details. They'll review it and give
you the help you need. But they can't help if you don't ask.
In that light, your actions are curious, at best. You claim
compatibility issues, yet you haven't contacted PowerBASIC Tech
Support for free assistance. At least 80% of PowerBASIC customers use
WinXP, yet you complain they're incompatible? That's quite a
stretch. But, we're always willing to listen. Just contact
sup...@powerbasic.com -- They'll address questions in a prompt and
professional manner.
So... I guess you have a choice to make. You can contact PowerBASIC
Support and get your questions answered. You can resolve the
Copyright issue in minutes and reinstate access to the PowerBASIC
Forums. You can continue as a valued PowerBASIC customer and get the
business respect you deserve. That would certainly be our preference.
Or... you can continue your antagonism towards PowerBASIC. You can
follow through on your threats and make cooperation impossible. You
can refuse our help and never get answers. You can even ignore our
emails, but that will just escalate the Copyright issue. That would
be a sad and unpleasant choice.
I imagine you'll do what's best for you. I don't believe there's any
benefit to further comments here.
Thomas Gohel
Hello Happy,
>> Personal note: English is not my mother tongue. You should write
>> your post in german, preferably. So we could prevent some mistakes.
>> ;-)
> You started this in English, and this newsgroup has traditional been
> an English language one. Please continue any posts in English.
Google should do the job in the next days: indexing the pages with
the "cannot access compiler problem", my description and knowledge
to this problem, incl. my offer to solve this problematic with the
concerned poeple. Sorry, these threads are in german. ,-)
Regards,
Thomas Gohel
Hello bob,
> Or... you can continue your antagonism towards PowerBASIC.
Yes of course Bob. That's my true motivation for my PowerBASIC-Homepage
since 12 years (note: your pages are only 11 years old), current with 5
reserved domains (without gohel.de), 750MB used diskspace for files,
services, PowerBASIC-FAQ, mailspace, user-webspace, other stuff and
a lot of traffic per months.
> You can follow through on your threats and make cooperation impossible.
> You can refuse our help and never get answers.
Nice joke. I don't need help <g>:
- I'd a problem with your product and solved the bug with a workaround.
- I'd reported the bug to Josef, your german distributor (Note: My
absolut respect for his great work for PowerBASIC in Germany)
- I'd read your webforum some months later and a question from a user
with an absolut identical problem.
- Ok, I tought, I could a little bit help (Ok, my first fault <g>).
- At first, the description of the error was inaccurate.
- So, I wrote my knowledge to this problem and saved the article between
my work on the article.
- In the meantime, Bob had a great and nice idea: To delete the post and
ban the user "Thomas Gohel" from forum.
What shall I say: Personal Bad luck for Chris Goff (the user with "cannot
access compiler problem"), same for you and some other PowerBASIC users
in the future, I think.
My help is definitely unwanted, I can accept it without any problems
and any personal ulterior motives. PowerBASIC is only one tool, not
any art of religion. So I can safe a lot of time with writing english
articles and spend this time to other projects.
> I imagine you'll do what's best for you.
It seems, that PB/CC 3.0 is my last compiler from PB. The reason is
really simply: It do the job here. A Linux-Version could change my
current opinion, maybe as well not, because the Apache is wonderful
stable und powerful under Windows.
Regards,
Thomas Gohel
Hello Thomas, ;-)
> Google is still alive ...
Yup,
Auric__
> At least 80% of PowerBASIC customers
> use WinXP, yet you complain they're incompatible?
Actually, I read it to mean that the specific system he mentioned
("Intel Core Duo CPUs, SATA and WinXP") didn't work. I've used PB/Win 8
on everything from Win95 & NT4 up to Win2003 without problems. (PB/Win
7 also worked on NT3.51; I haven't tried 8 there... yet.) Of course, I
don't have a "current" system (Pentium III), but then, I don't *write*
for "current" systems.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
I wanna hug you with a car crusher.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
b...@powerbasic.com
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:12:12 GMT, Bob Zale wrote:
>
> > At least 80% of PowerBASIC customers
> > use WinXP, yet you complain they're incompatible?
>
> Actually, I read it to mean that the specific system he mentioned
> ("Intel Core Duo CPUs, SATA and WinXP") didn't work. I've used PB/Win 8
> on everything from Win95 & NT4 up to Win2003 without problems. (PB/Win
> 7 also worked on NT3.51; I haven't tried 8 there... yet.) Of course, I
> don't have a "current" system (Pentium III), but then, I don't *write*
> for "current" systems.
That's certainly a possibility, Auric. But, even though it's an
interpretation I hadn't considered, I'm not sure it's any more
credible. Can you possibly imagine that, out of thousands of
PowerBASIC customers, not one is using that platform? We've never
received a report of that nature at PowerBASIC. Never. Of course, if
we do, we'll deal with it appropriately.
Anyway, thanks for the comments! It's always good to get another's
perspective.
Auric__
> Auric__ wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:12:12 GMT, Bob Zale wrote:
>>
>> > At least 80% of PowerBASIC customers
>> > use WinXP, yet you complain they're incompatible?
>>
>> Actually, I read it to mean that the specific system he mentioned
>> ("Intel Core Duo CPUs, SATA and WinXP") didn't work.
>
> That's certainly a possibility, Auric. But, even though it's an
> interpretation I hadn't considered, I'm not sure it's any more
> credible. Can you possibly imagine that, out of thousands of
> PowerBASIC customers, not one is using that platform? We've never
> received a report of that nature at PowerBASIC. Never. Of
> course, if we do, we'll deal with it appropriately.
Uh... faulty hardware on his end, maybe? [shrug] I dunno, I was just
throwing the possibility out there. (I'm so behind the times on
hardware I'm not even sure what "SATA" is. Acronym Finder, here I
come...)
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
You gave me what I wanted and used that to destroy me!
It's only fair that I return the compliment.
Judson McClendon
>
> Actually, I read it to mean that the specific system he mentioned
> ("Intel Core Duo CPUs, SATA and WinXP") didn't work. I've used PB/Win 8
> on everything from Win95 & NT4 up to Win2003 without problems. (PB/Win
> 7 also worked on NT3.51; I haven't tried 8 there... yet.) Of course, I
> don't have a "current" system (Pentium III), but then, I don't *write*
> for "current" systems.
The problem description, and exactly what was done to analyze it,
wasn't that clear to me. Personally, before I jumped on an otherwise
known-to-be-reliable compiler, I would probably try an install of the
compiler on a fresh Windows installation. Use something like Norton
Ghost, backup your boot partition, reload a backup made right after
installing Windows fresh (What? Didn't make one? Tsk, tsk! Then
think next time you install Windows; blank DVDs are < $.40 each in
quantity.), install and test the compiler then. If you back up to another
hard drive (cheap these days) or partition, the whole backup, reload,
install, test, reload process takes maybe two hours; much less time
than has already been frittered away in these rantings. :-)
I am meticulous about my production PC, and install nothing that
isn't needed there. Even so, Windows becomes unstable over time.
The problem subject of this thread could be a symptom of this.
Just a few weeks ago I had to reinstall WinXp Pro, which had
become somewhat flaky and unstable after nearly two years. The
longest I had ever gone without reinstalling. At one point, my
scanner stopped working, and for a time I thought the scanner had
"bit the dust".
How did I do it? When I originally installed everything in August of
2005, I made a backup immediately after installing Windows, then
another after installing additional device drivers, then another after
activation, then several more as I installed all my software (my setup
is fairly complex, it takes me several days to do it from scratch). I
documented what was done at each step of the way in a 'setup log',
which was backed up and kept. The last thing I install is dated
software like Norton Antivirus, done after the last 'setup' backup.
Then I copy my latest data files to the target PC and make the first
dated, production backup. It was a simple matter to refer to my
2005 setup log, locate the last original setup backup that did not
include any programs that had changed or been updated since,
reload it, and resume installation from there. Took much less time
than if I had installed Windows from scratch, I didn't have to bother
with Microsoft's flaky activation process, which sometimes requires
you to call in and takes 20 minutes. My system is now rock solid,
and the scanner works perfectly; used it this morning.
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Auric__
> How did I do it? When I originally installed everything in August
> of 2005, I made a backup immediately after installing Windows,
> then another after installing additional device drivers, then
> another after activation, then several more as I installed all my
> software (my setup is fairly complex, it takes me several days to
> do it from scratch). I documented what was done at each step of
> the way in a 'setup log', which was backed up and kept. The last
> thing I install is dated software like Norton Antivirus, done
> after the last 'setup' backup. Then I copy my latest data files to
> the target PC and make the first dated, production backup. It was
> a simple matter to refer to my 2005 setup log, locate the last
> original setup backup that did not include any programs that had
> changed or been updated since, reload it, and resume installation
> from there. Took much less time than if I had installed Windows
> from scratch, I didn't have to bother with Microsoft's flaky
> activation process, which sometimes requires you to call in and
> takes 20 minutes. My system is now rock solid, and the scanner
> works perfectly; used it this morning.
Damn. That's a lot of backups.
Alternately, you could do what I used to do:
1. Install the OS of your choice. (At the time it was Windows 2000
for me.)
2. Install all appropriate drivers and OS patches.
3. Install antivirus and firewall (if connected to the internet).
4. Install PC emulation software. (At the time I used and recommended
Connectix Virtual PC. After MS bought it, I switched to VMWare.)
5. Repeat the process inside a virtual machine.
6. Make a copy of the VM. (Separate drive images and everything.)
7. Install what you will in the VM copy.
8. If installing something breaks something else, revert.
It works so well that I intend to do that exclusively once I get a
computer not controlled by a hamster in a wheel.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
Remember when sex was dirty and the air was clean?
Judson McClendon
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>> How did I do it? When I originally installed everything in August
>> of 2005, I made a backup immediately after installing Windows,
>> then another after installing additional device drivers, then
>> another after activation, then several more as I installed all my
>> software (my setup is fairly complex, it takes me several days to
>> do it from scratch). I documented what was done at each step of
>> the way in a 'setup log', which was backed up and kept. The last
>> thing I install is dated software like Norton Antivirus, done
>> after the last 'setup' backup. Then I copy my latest data files to
>> the target PC and make the first dated, production backup. It was
>> a simple matter to refer to my 2005 setup log, locate the last
>> original setup backup that did not include any programs that had
>> changed or been updated since, reload it, and resume installation
>> from there. Took much less time than if I had installed Windows
>> from scratch, I didn't have to bother with Microsoft's flaky
>> activation process, which sometimes requires you to call in and
>> takes 20 minutes. My system is now rock solid, and the scanner
>> works perfectly; used it this morning.
>
> Damn. That's a lot of backups.
Yes, but it only takes a few minutes to back up a partition to an image
on a hard drive, and I only have to do this every couple of years. Also,
since it takes 3 or 4 days to get everything set up correctly, all those
backups come in handy if I make a mistake or have a problem during
installation. I can just reload the previous backup and resume. I like my
original installations to be completely pristine, without any corrected
errors or bobbles, because they're the foundation I'll be running on for
some time. :-)
Auric__
> "Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote:
>>
>> Damn. That's a lot of backups.
>
> Yes, but it only takes a few minutes to back up a partition to an
> image on a hard drive, and I only have to do this every couple of
> years. Also, since it takes 3 or 4 days to get everything set up
> correctly, all those backups come in handy if I make a mistake or
> have a problem during installation. I can just reload the previous
> backup and resume. I like my original installations to be
> completely pristine, without any corrected errors or bobbles,
> because they're the foundation I'll be running on for some time.
> :-)
Come on, Real Men reinstall Windows every month or two! :) (God knows
I do.)
Besides, my partitions start at "pretty big" and go up from there.
The only one I have that could be imaged to anything other than
another hard drive is my Linux /boot partition, 'cause it's the only
one with less than a dozen or so gigs of crap. (100MB partition. 3
kernels. Lots of free space.)
The only stuff I actually back up are \Desktop, \MyDocs, and, every
three months or so, \WinTools, so I don't have to reinstall
everything (and the Linux equivalents to the above, also).
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
I walk in Eternity.
Don
not do me sufficient harm to ban that person from the site. I
understand it is your football and your rules.
Just a thought.
Don
b...@powerbasic.com
That's a good point, Don, and one worth considering. The truth is,
we've considered it for quite a long time. However, there's much more
to this than just the "loose cannon" aspect. We've managed to exist
with "loose cannons" in the past, and I'm sure we'll have more.
{smile} But in this case, we have a serious issue we need to resolve,
which involves both PowerBASIC and our customers. We've written him
more than 20 times, and we've been ignored. Not a single response of
any sort. The inaccurate posts were just the "straw that broke the
camel's back". We simply hoped that a temporary suspension would give
him a "wake-up" call and encourage him to talk to us. So far,
unsuccessful.
Please note my many suggestions for a conversation earlier in this
thread. By the way, it's not hundreds of users, but many, many
thousands. Just the other afternoon, we had 250 users active on the
PowerBASIC Forums at the same time. Check it out! You might find it
interesting! Visit us now at www.powerbasic.com
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>Please note my many suggestions for a conversation earlier in this
>thread. By the way, it's not hundreds of users, but many, many
>thousands. Just the other afternoon, we had 250 users active on the
>PowerBASIC Forums at the same time. Check it out! You might find it
>interesting! Visit us now at www.powerbasic.com
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bob Zale
>PowerBASIC Inc.
============
Just another 2 cents worth from another satisfied PBCC user.
I never have had any problems with the compiler, although my
programs do give a bit of trouble from time to time. The
elimination of many checking routines within the compiler makes
for much faster execration and smaller programs, and puts the
responsibility where it belongs, i.e. back on the programmer.
I did discover a small omission in the documentation however
while writing a monte carlo simulation. While the rnd function
is well described, the distribution of the numbers generated,
[uniform, normal, etc.] was not specified. [it is uniform or
flat] A test program to determine the distribution was hack out
in a few minutes, and 100,000,000 million iterations takes < 10
seconds on my older PC.
Thanks for a very useful and dependable tool. I need to update my
v4.01, but it seems to be working fine.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.
Thomas Gohel
Hello bob,
> written him more than 20 times,
I know it, you know it: It's not true. What's the reason for your
continues lies (flaming, discrimination, distraction from the
original problem)?
I know, I should stop at first the posting of the PowerBASIC-FAQ,
before I could get an useful answer. That's what I received from your
site a long time ago. But that's a punch in the head of all PowerBASIC
users, which a concerned in the long period of building this document.
Sorry for these hard words, it's only a result of your art of
discussion, Bob.
> and we've been ignored.
See below.
By the way: Do you have a solution for the "cannot access compiler
results" bug on some current Intel hardware in your PowerBASIC compiler?
Are you somehow interested in workarounds for the concerned PowerBASIC
user? I think not and everybody can read this and a bunch of people
are with my opinion.
PS: It's your live-work and your own reputation. :-(
b...@powerbasic.com
> On 23 Sep 07, wrote:
>
> Hello bob,
>
> > written him more than 20 times,
>
> I know it, you know it: It's not true. What's the reason for your
> continues lies (flaming, discrimination, distraction from the
> original problem)?
Why thank you, Thomas. Considering your normal disposition, I almost
consider that a compliment.
Just to set the record straight, we have written to you over twenty
(20) times regarding a serious copyright issue which affects both
PowerBASIC Inc. and a number of our customers. We have politely asked
you to respond, but you have ignored us completely (other than the
"pleasant" quote above). It would really be in your best interests to
contact our office soon. It would also make me very happy.
> I know, I should stop at first the posting of the PowerBASIC-FAQ,
> before I could get an useful answer. That's what I received from your
> site a long time ago. But that's a punch in the head of all PowerBASIC
> users, which a concerned in the long period of building this document.
Perhaps you think you should stop posting it? PowerBASIC Inc. has
never made that request of you.
> By the way: Do you have a solution for the "cannot access compiler
> results" bug on some current Intel hardware in your PowerBASIC compiler?
Actually, yes we do. Though it only affects a handful of customers,
everyone who has contacted PowerBASIC Technical Support has received
an update which handles the issue quite gracefully. You may recall I
made this same suggestion to you, several times. If I recall
correctly, I believe you scoffed at the suggestion and said something
like "I don't need your help!". Just look back through this thread,
and I think you'll find your exact words.
Thomas, you've been extraordinarily rude. In spite of that, all of
the offers I made to help you remain open and available to you. We're
still willing to help you and treat you with respect. Don't you think
it's about time you settle down?
Olav Bergesen
Welcome to the club.I have just received an mail from Tim at Powerbasic, INC
saying:
[...]
Your download ability is permanently revoked. Have a nice day.
Tim
[...]
On what ground?? I didn't want to give them my phone number, so I gave them
a none existing one.The field was a required field in the web form.
I have followed Powerbasic,INC over the past ten years or so and must say
that they have amezed me many times.
For about 2 months ago they said this in an mail to me:
[...]
Thank you for your order! We
appreciate the business you've given us over the years.
[...]
Several customer has left Powerbasic over the past ten years, or so. Some
because Bob Zale have refused them to be a customer of PB.Other have left
them because of the way Mr. Zale treats people. You never know when he bites
you, or what mood he is in from one day to the next. Mr. Zale has a
arbitrary way to treat others.
So if you plan to buy a PB product I would advise you, including anyone who
reads this, to look for something else.You will never know what day you
will be kicked out of Mr Zale's customer list.This could cause you seriously
problems if you plans to do seriously programming using PB compilers.
--
OB
"Thomas Gohel" <go...@basicguru.de> skrev i melding
news:AP4Fg...@basicguru.de...
b...@powerbasic.com
> Hello,
>
> Welcome to the club.
Sometimes, it just amazes me at the things folks can complain
about... {smile}
This afternoon, PowerBASIC released a free update to our PowerBASIC
Console Compiler 4.0 and PowerBASIC 8.0 for Windows. We invested
thousands of programming and testing hours into this update, yet we
provided it to our customers at absolutely no cost. The only thing we
asked of our customers in return was a confirmation of their contact
information. Their name. Their address. Their telephone and email
address, so we could be certain our records were up-to-date, and that
we were actually providing a new compler to a person who had actually
purchased the prior version.
We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an improved version of
PowerBASIC. We gave it to you for free. All we asked in return is
that you confirm your contact information.
You refused. You provided false information. But you were given the
free update anyway. You have it on your computer today. And you are
complaining?
We didn't refuse your update. We didn't refuse you future updates.
We simply said: If you refuse to provide truthful contact
information, you'll have to obtain future updates by mail, not by
download.
Please enjoy your updated version of PowerBASIC. Have a nice day,
Olav.
b...@powerbasic.com
> Hello,
>
> Welcome to the club.
Might it be interesting to see what other friends and customers of
PowerBASIC have to say? Here are a few direct quotes from the
PowerBASIC FORUMS today!
"I absolutely LOVE how you guys are fair
to the customer and a MAJOR reason I
recommend PB over other languages ..."
I am excited to see, and learn all the
new progress. THANK YOU BOB!!!"
Cliff Nichols
"Now, this is what I call exitement...
&hFFFFFFFF thanks to you Bob.
Can't wait to play with this new toy..."
Pierre Bellisle
"Ha..Ha....my move is correct......
It is now to say :BIG" thank you to all
of you guys..."
Alan Leong
"Awesome, That is totally awesome.
Thank you Bob. Thank you, thank you,
thank you."
Buck Huffman
"I have mass-compiled all of my source
files, and have not thus far seen any
indications of undesirable behavior in
my programs. That's not surprising to
me at all, considering the stability of
the PowerBASIC, Inc. products.
Thanks, Bob & Staff."
Clay Clear
"Compliments are in order for doing a
rewrite of this scale, I have just
tested the new pbwin8x version on a
number of middle sized apps and it
works correctly but a lot faster."
Steve Hutchesson
"Wow, compile time is so faaaast!"
Eros Olmi
"Wow! Just installed the 8.04 update
and gave it a whirl... The compile
times (which have always been fast,
IMO) are even faster now... I don't
know what all is involved with moving
a hand written assembler program from
16-bit to 32-bit, especially a program
as complicated and involved as a compiler.
It sounds like an enormous task, and to
offer it as a free upgrade is simply
fantastic. Congrats PowerBASIC on a job
well done."
Bryan Flick
"PBWin 8.04 compilation speed is
significantly faster ! Thanks PowerBASIC
for this free update !!"
Eddy Van Esch
"Thank you Bob. I love your compiler - I
constantly toy with other tools but always
come back to Powerbasic."
Jim Klutho
"Much faster, indeed! Big thumbs up from me.
Thanks for such a great product. It makes
programming a joy."
Paul Squires
"Thanks PB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Rick Angell
"Did the upgrade, everything works perfectly.
Thanks"
Shawn Anderson
"Job well done. Thanks Bob and all the rest
of you at PB. You have just further driven
home the reason I have been using PB for so
many years. Thank you!"
Noble Bell
"Very much appreciated Bob and the PB Team."
Christopher Carroll
Again, thank you to our many friends. May I respectfully invite
everyone here to visit the PowerBASIC Forums right now? Over 265,000
messages, contributions, and code examples from good programmers just
like you! Just GOTO www.powerbasic.com and click FORUMS. We're
waiting for you!
Best regards,
Bob Zale, President
PowerBASIC Inc.
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1191992314.4...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
than youself.I gave you the very same contact info I always have given you,
but this time the info was not accepted.A slight error in the phone number;
I was told. I have always used a set of zeros in the phone number, as far I
can remeber it, just to indicate clearly that it is not a valid number and
that I have no interest in giving away my phone number. You have already
enough relevant info to verify my identity.My phone number is to no value to
you, in this regard.
What others calls incorrect info, in a web form field; you call a lie;
which have to be punished. I'm not the first or only customer of Powerbasic
that you punish in one way or another.Most of the time the only reason for
this is that he or she dosen't comply to the rules you have made up for
yourself, for others to bow for.
I have seen plenty of examples of that the past 10 years. What a sick and
evil person you are, Mr. Zale!!! I really pity those who have to work at
your mafia company.
--
OB
Olav Bergesen
of the many false god's of our time
This is exactly what you require from your customers - to be worshiped by
them.This is people which have made themselves so dependent of Powerbasic,
Inc, that they doesn't dare to do other than to worship you, in order not
to be banned by you. Who the heck do you think you are? I could tell you,
but I think it's better left unsaid for now.
--
OB
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1191997826.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
b...@powerbasic.com
Let me explain it to you one more time. Perhaps you'll read it this
time?
When we offer a free update to our customer, there are two possible
methods of delivery: download or mail. If you wish to download an
update, you must first confirm your contact information. We compare
it to the information on file to be sure you are really our customer.
We want to be sure you are Olav Bergesen, not some mean old nasty
software pirate. {smile}
We don't want your telephone number so we can make a sales call to
you. In the 24 year history of PowerBASIC, we've never made a sales
call to any customer. We want you to tell us your telephone number so
we can compare it to the number on file to be certain this is really
you. Not some sick and evil software pirate. {smile} We already
know your telephone number -- you gave it to us with your original
order. We want to compare it with today's data. Once we have
sufficient information to be certain you are really Olav Bergesen, we
release your free download.
If you don't like our method of approving downloads, that's fine with
us. Just get your free software update by mail. Many customers
choose that option.
If you refuse to cooperate in this simple matter... fine. If you
choose to provide false information... fine. Just get your free
software update by mail
If you refuse to tell us the truth, we can not approve a download of
our free software update. We aren't "punishing" you. We're
protecting our investment in our company from software thieves.
You see, when we deliver a free update by mail, we know it's going to
our real customer. Not some nasty software pirate. Then everyone is
very happy!
If you really believe I am sick and evil for taking these precautions,
you should probably discuss it with your therapist. Have a nice time
with your free PowerBASIC update. I truly hope you enjoy it!
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192014858.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Olav, Olav, Olav...
>
> Let me explain it to you one more time. Perhaps you'll read it this
> time?
Speak for yourself. I have never seen that you have taking into account,
anything what whomsoever have to say in a matter.
You are so narrow minded that it makes me to...whatever.You acts like a
religious fanatic, and the religion in question here is your own narrrowed
mind.
--
OB
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192014858.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> Olav, Olav, Olav...
>
[...]
> If you really believe I am sick and evil for taking these precautions,
> you should probably discuss it with your therapist.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bob Zale, President
> PowerBASIC Inc.
>
It wouldn't surprise me that you have a good experience in this field, since
you recomend it to others.
--
OB
b...@powerbasic.com
close to crossing the line of decency.
PowerBASIC does not "owe" you a free update. PowerBASIC never
"promised" you an update in the past. PowerBASIC voluntarily created
an update, at great expense, and offered it to you absolutely free of
cost. We have chosen to place certain requirements on the method of
delivery, to protect our financial interests. That is clearly fair
and just. If you want the free software, just follow the guidelines.
Otherwise, just ignore it.
You've used vile and disgusting descriptions. You've called me nasty
names? You've called me a member of the mafia? That's getting
outrageous, even for you.
You won't get the help you need by arguing with me. We won't change
our procedures just because you use foul and disgusting language. We
won't change our procedures just because you call me a "false god".
We won't change our procedures just because you threaten me. No,
we'll just continue to treat all of our customers with the respect
they deserve.
You need to discuss this with someone else. A family member, a close
friend, a member of the clergy, even a therapist. Show them all of
the messages, and ask their opinion. For your own sake, please don't
continue with this abuse. Thank you.
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.
Judson McClendon
It's obvious you care about customer opinion, just from the fact that
you responded civilly to such a tirade. :-) Any reasonably objective
third party reading these messages can clearly see where the problem is,
and it isn't you. If they can't, nothing will persuade them otherwise. I've
been in business myself for nearly 30 years, and there are some people
it just isn't worth it to do business with. Fortunately they're only a small
fraction of potential customers. Unfortunately, some people listen to
them as if they were rational like everybody else, which I'm sure is why
you bothered to respond here.
I have no interest in PowerBASIC, Inc., except the normal interests of a
customer. I've been using all three PowerBASIC compilers professionally
for eight years this month, and have always found PowerBASIC to be
friendly and responsive to my needs as a customer. The PowerBASIC
compilers are quality products, in my opinion, and well worth the price.
Your free updates are generous, and I'm sure are appreciated by most of
your customers. I always update and upgrade to the latest versions, but
I've encountered more bugs in Visual Studio 2005 in the past year than
I've encountered in PowerBASIC compilers in the last eight years. Now,
I really appreciate that! :-)
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
b...@powerbasic.com
Thanks, Judson. You've "made my day".
Very nice to hear from you.
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.
Peter Manders
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>The PowerBASIC
>compilers are quality products, in my opinion, and well worth the price.
Welcome to the club... of very happy PowerBASIC users ;-)
I just installed the updates. These compilers already were great
products (flawless as far as I can tell), and I'm amazed that they've
still found ways to improve them.
--
Peter Manders.
"640 HP ought to be enough for anybody."
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192019828.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> We treat every customer with respect. Even you. But this is getting
> close to crossing the line of decency.
If so,you should remove me from the gazette list. I just received an email
from you saying that my request about this had been rejected.
"SPAM REJECTED" the mail said.
>
> PowerBASIC does not "owe" you a free update. PowerBASIC never
> "promised" you an update in the past. PowerBASIC voluntarily created
> an update, at great expense, and offered it to you absolutely free of
> cost. We have chosen to place certain requirements on the method of
> delivery, to protect our financial interests. That is clearly fair
> and just. If you want the free software, just follow the guidelines.
> Otherwise, just ignore it.
> You've used vile and disgusting descriptions. You've called me nasty
> names? You've called me a member of the mafia? That's getting
> outrageous, even for you.
> You won't get the help you need by arguing with me.
I know. I have long experience in the fact that it is much more meaningful
to talk to the cat than to you.
>we won't change our procedures just because you use foul and disgusting
>language. We
> won't change our procedures just because you call me a "false god".
> We won't change our procedures just because you threaten me. No,
> we'll just continue to treat all of our customers with the respect
> they deserve.
>
> You need to discuss this with someone else. A family member, a close
> friend, a member of the clergy, even a therapist. Show them all of
> the messages, and ask their opinion. For your own sake, please don't
> continue with this abuse. Thank you.
>
> Bob Zale
> PowerBASIC Inc.
>
I can't see that it is you that decide what I should continue with. You are
on a usenet group now, and that's not a place where you can boss around with
others, bastard!
And I ask you now to remove me from the Gazette list
--
OB
F. George McDuffee
<snip>
>Might it be interesting to see what other friends and customers of
>PowerBASIC have to say?
Speaking for myself. I have the CC and I have been very pleased
and impressed with both your product [ease of use, raw computing
power/speed, and features], your forums and the professional
support.
I still need to download the update, but as I am on a 28.8kb
landline, will do so at the T1 connection municipial library.
Some people would complain if you hanged them with a new rope.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
[snip]
>
>If so,you should remove me from the gazette list. I just received an email
>from you saying that my request about this had been rejected.
>"SPAM REJECTED" the mail said.
>
[snip]
Olav Bergesen, Don't go away mad, just go away ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
Olav Bergesen
"Peter Manders" <ne...@manders.demon.nul> skrev i melding
news:3appg3573ersg76og...@4ax.com...
When did this thread become a thread about the compilers of PB?
It is a thread about the company PowerBASIC,Inc og he who is in charge
there, Bob Zale, and his way to treat everyone that does not fall down on
their knees and give praise and worship to him.
--
OB
Olav Bergesen
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> skrev i
melding news:na1qg3lbdlpal0ing...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:09:23 +0200, "Olav Bergesen" <o...@nordmann.on>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>>If so,you should remove me from the gazette list. I just received an email
>>from you saying that my request about this had been rejected.
>>"SPAM REJECTED" the mail said.
>>
> [snip]
>
> Olav Bergesen, Don't go away mad, just go away ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Why? Is it you who decides who should be allowed to appear in a usenet
group?
If you don't like me it would be better that you left.And you don't have to
read my messages, if you don't like what I say.
--
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>
>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> skrev i
>melding news:na1qg3lbdlpal0ing...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:09:23 +0200, "Olav Bergesen" <o...@nordmann.on>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>If so,you should remove me from the gazette list. I just received an email
>>>from you saying that my request about this had been rejected.
>>>"SPAM REJECTED" the mail said.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Olav Bergesen, Don't go away mad, just go away ;-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
>Why? Is it you who decides who should be allowed to appear in a usenet
>group?
>If you don't like me it would be better that you left.And you don't have to
>read my messages, if you don't like what I say.
It's not me that is paranoid ;-)
Peter Manders
wrote:
>
>"Peter Manders" <ne...@manders.demon.nul> skrev i melding
>news:3appg3573ersg76og...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:51:47 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
>> <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The PowerBASIC
>>>compilers are quality products, in my opinion, and well worth the price.
>>
>> Welcome to the club... of very happy PowerBASIC users ;-)
>>
>> I just installed the updates. These compilers already were great
>> products (flawless as far as I can tell), and I'm amazed that they've
>> still found ways to improve them.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Manders.
>>
>> "640 HP ought to be enough for anybody."
>
>When did this thread become a thread about the compilers of PB?
New to usenet, are you?
>It is a thread about the company PowerBASIC,Inc og he who is in charge
>there, Bob Zale, and his way to treat everyone that does not fall down on
>their knees and give praise and worship to him.
It is a thread about someone who apparently lost his temper, and is
still having trouble admitting it and becoming rational again. Mr.
Zale on the other hand, has behaved himself like a gentleman in this
thread.
You don't seem to intend to resolve your issue with PowerBASIC. You
remind me of those kids in the supermarket that scream and misbehave
until they get their toy or candy. What is it that you really want, or
do you just want to throw mud around?
Olav Bergesen
"Peter Manders" <ne...@manders.demon.nul> skrev i melding
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:22:30 +0200, "Olav Bergesen" <o...@nordmann.on>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Manders" <ne...@manders.demon.nul> skrev i melding
>>news:3appg3573ersg76og...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:51:47 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
>>> <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The PowerBASIC
>>>>compilers are quality products, in my opinion, and well worth the price.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the club... of very happy PowerBASIC users ;-)
>>>
>>> I just installed the updates. These compilers already were great
>>> products (flawless as far as I can tell), and I'm amazed that they've
>>> still found ways to improve them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Manders.
>>>
>>> "640 HP ought to be enough for anybody."
>>
>>When did this thread become a thread about the compilers of PB?
>
> New to usenet, are you?
>
>>It is a thread about the company PowerBASIC,Inc og he who is in charge
>>there, Bob Zale, and his way to treat everyone that does not fall down on
>>their knees and give praise and worship to him.
>
> It is a thread about someone who apparently lost his temper, and is
> still having trouble admitting it and becoming rational again. Mr.
> Zale on the other hand, has behaved himself like a gentleman in this
> thread.
This thread is not about behaviour!
>
> You don't seem to intend to resolve your issue with PowerBASIC. You
> remind me of those kids in the supermarket that scream and misbehave
> until they get their toy or candy. What is it that you really want, or
> do you just want to throw mud around?
>
Ask rather what is it that Bob Zale wants? To force me to pay for the
update? A update he have made freely available to everyone.
Speaking of kids; in another message Mr. Zale wrote:
[...]
Thanks, Judson. You've "made my day".
Very nice to hear from you
[...]
That reminds me of a kid in the kindergarden who just have received comfort
from someone.Mr Zale seems to like to have someone to make his day.He who
likes to spoil the day for others.
I never have had the impression - in this case - that there was an issue
between me and Mr Zale.If so I would have expected that he contacted me
about what the problem was, and given me an oppurtunity to explain what, how
and why. All I got was this:
[...]
I'm afraid we must now revoke your ability to download software from
PowerBASIC. You can still purchase products for physical delivery,
but that will incur shipping charges.
[...]
No explanation. No reason giving. No nothing. So I sent a mail to PB and in
a polite way tried to explain my view on this.
This is what I received back:
"Your download ability is permanently revoked. Have a nice day".
Nothing more and nothing less.
What the heck of an issue should this be. I'm not being informed about his
decision, and I'm not giving the any chance of presenting my view: And he
don't care to listen to what I have to say.He just cut me off that easy, and
I would like to remind the readers that I'm not the first and not the last
one he treats this way.How the heck can one reolve an issue with Mr Zale
when he is completly lacks the ability to listen to what others have to
say.Instead he acts like a jugde to anyone who doesn't immediately comply to
his rigorously rules.
I guess that this "issue" also would have occured if I - since the time of
last download -had change my phone number.Banned from downloading because
my phone number was different from last time.
--
OB
Jim Thompson
<ne...@manders.demon.nul> wrote:
[snip]
>You
>remind me of those kids in the supermarket that scream and misbehave
>until they get their toy or candy. What is it that you really want, or
>do you just want to throw mud around?
I had SO much fun in a Safeway store a few years ago...
(I should preface that I am 67 years old, white hair and beard and
grandfather to 8.)
I'm pushing my cart down an aisle and I observe a little girl, sitting
in the child seat of a cart, screaming here head off about having to
have some piece of candy or other.
I see that her mother is all the way to the far end of the aisle.
As I pass by the cart I lean over and say, "If you were my kid I'd
kick the shit out of you."
Screaming and crying cease instantaneously.
I keep walking, mother looks up, puzzled.
I smile and keep walking.
Today I'd probably get sued ;-)
H-Man
> Bob,
>
> It's obvious you care about customer opinion, just from the fact that
> you responded civilly to such a tirade. :-) Any reasonably objective
> third party reading these messages can clearly see where the problem is,
> and it isn't you. If they can't, nothing will persuade them otherwise. I've
> been in business myself for nearly 30 years, and there are some people
> it just isn't worth it to do business with. Fortunately they're only a small
> fraction of potential customers. Unfortunately, some people listen to
> them as if they were rational like everybody else, which I'm sure is why
> you bothered to respond here.
>
> I have no interest in PowerBASIC, Inc., except the normal interests of a
> customer. I've been using all three PowerBASIC compilers professionally
> for eight years this month, and have always found PowerBASIC to be
> friendly and responsive to my needs as a customer. The PowerBASIC
> compilers are quality products, in my opinion, and well worth the price.
>
> Your free updates are generous, and I'm sure are appreciated by most of
> your customers. I always update and upgrade to the latest versions, but
> I've encountered more bugs in Visual Studio 2005 in the past year than
> I've encountered in PowerBASIC compilers in the last eight years. Now,
> I really appreciate that! :-)
Hey Judson,
I'm not a PowerBasic customer and never have been. I've looked long at the
product offerings and always decided on something else for some reason.
QB4.5, VBDOS, VB4 then VB6 and the last purchase for a BASI compiler was
PureBasic. All updates are always free, for life. Anyway, I do not doubt
the PowerBasic compile quality.
I do read this thread a bit differently than you do, I see a big problem on
both sides. As a GM for a company I can see many ways for Bob to "make this
right" but chooses not to, this is of course his option, I am not intending
to cast stones here. If not for your recommendation, I might have never
further considered PB in light of this thread, but in the future I may take
the plunge. Either way I certainly hope that Bob can find a way to satisfy
his customers, even the ones with short fuses.
--
HK
Michael Mattias
news:470d52d7$0$90434$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>...
>PureBasic. All updates are always free, for life
Well, for the life of the publisher, anyway. In the software business,
'life' is not always a real long time.
MCM
Bart Lateur
>The only thing we
>asked of our customers in return was a confirmation of their contact
>information. Their name. Their address. Their telephone and email
>address, so we could be certain our records were up-to-date, and that
>we were actually providing a new compler to a person who had actually
>purchased the prior version.
People are not required to even have a phone. So your requirement of
filling in a phone number is asking for false data.
--
Bart.
Judson McClendon
If you read Bob's comments, he said that, for online update downloads,
the phone number was compared against the one on file. I assume from
that statement that if you did not have a phone number when you
purchased the product, and you entered none on the download page, it
would match.
Anyway, how many people do you know who download software from
the internet and do not have a phone? :-)
Peter Manders
wrote:
>Ask rather what is it that Bob Zale wants?
He has already explained what he wants.
>To force me to pay for the
>update? A update he have made freely available to everyone.
>Speaking of kids; in another message Mr. Zale wrote:
>[...]
> Thanks, Judson. You've "made my day".
> Very nice to hear from you
>[...]
Do you really think Bob Zale handles all those customer details
personally? I bet he didn't even know about your problem before you
started posting here. Of course his staff is checking all of the data
entered, and if something isn't right, like two different people
trying to download with the same serial number, or someone providing
false data, they just do what they're told to do in such a situation.
>What the heck of an issue should this be. I'm not being informed about his
>decision, and I'm not giving the any chance of presenting my view: And he
>don't care to listen to what I have to say.He just cut me off that easy, and
>I would like to remind the readers that I'm not the first and not the last
>one he treats this way.How the heck can one reolve an issue with Mr Zale
>when he is completly lacks the ability to listen to what others have to
>say.Instead he acts like a jugde to anyone who doesn't immediately comply to
>his rigorously rules.
Of course he has to enforce his own rules. Some very large company
even disables your entire operating system if you don't register your
license. And you don't get to download updates if their detection
system thinks there's a problem with your license. No humans are
involved in applying those rules.
Apparently something went wrong when you tried to communicate with
PowerBASIC staff about this. But judging from your hormone driven tone
here, my guess is that the problem isn't at PowerBASIC's end.
>I guess that this "issue" also would have occured if I - since the time of
>last download -had change my phone number.Banned from downloading because
>my phone number was different from last time.
I have moved to another city a couple of years ago, and got a
completely different address and phonenumbers now, but never had any
problems like yours. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Olav Bergesen
"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> skrev i melding
news:q%lPi.79$Ia...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "Bart Lateur" <bart....@pandora.be> wrote:
>> b...@powerbasic.com wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing we
>>>asked of our customers in return was a confirmation of their contact
>>>information. Their name. Their address. Their telephone and email
>>>address, so we could be certain our records were up-to-date, and that
>>>we were actually providing a new compler to a person who had actually
>>>purchased the prior version.
>>
>> People are not required to even have a phone. So your requirement of
>> filling in a phone number is asking for false data.
>
> If you read Bob's comments, he said that, for online update downloads,
> the phone number was compared against the one on file. I assume from
> that statement that if you did not have a phone number when you
> purchased the product, and you entered none on the download page, it
> would match.
>
> Anyway, how many people do you know who download software from
> the internet and do not have a phone? :-)
Broadband? I'm not using any phone line for my internet connection.
What about the required fax number? It is even more common to *not* have a
fax machine at home.
Is a set of zero's in this field - in this situation - a lie, or just an
incorrect , and fully explainable, information in a field?
Anyway, if Mr Zale found an differ in the phone number, he had the full
possibility to handle this in quite a diffrent way.
But he chosed not to.Instead he just threw me a verdict in my face; saying I
was guilty, and with no chance to neither defence nor appeal.
This was his chance to show me that he is the high and mighty, and that
you - you customer . is just some trash.
--
OB
Judson McClendon
>
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> "Bart Lateur" <bart....@pandora.be> wrote:
>>> b...@powerbasic.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>The only thing we
>>>>asked of our customers in return was a confirmation of their contact
>>>>information. Their name. Their address. Their telephone and email
>>>>address, so we could be certain our records were up-to-date, and that
>>>>we were actually providing a new compler to a person who had actually
>>>>purchased the prior version.
>>>
>>> People are not required to even have a phone. So your requirement of
>>> filling in a phone number is asking for false data.
>>
>> If you read Bob's comments, he said that, for online update downloads,
>> the phone number was compared against the one on file. I assume from
>> that statement that if you did not have a phone number when you
>> purchased the product, and you entered none on the download page, it
>> would match.
>>
>> Anyway, how many people do you know who download software from
>> the internet and do not have a phone? :-)
>
> Broadband? I'm not using any phone line for my internet connection.
You know Olav, for a while I just thought you were only extremely rude
and insensitive. But now I'm beginning to think you're also stupid. I said
*nothing* about using a phone line for Internet access. My point was
that any person who is "connected" enough to have Internet access and
a compiler to run a compiler on will also be "connected" enough to
have a phone line. I know lots of people who have Internet access
without a landline telephone, but all of them have cell phones or VOIP.
The people reading these newsgroups only know you from what you
write here. Up to this point, what you've written makes you look like a
ranting childish idiot. There's no doubt that you're ranting. But if you're
not a childish idiot, and do not want people to think that you are, then
stop acting like one. For one thing, start paying attention to what others
have written before responding with foolish rants that obviously miss
the point, as you did above, and have done so many times before.
And try to make reasonable, responsive posts instead of blathering
rants. Finally, try to use a little courtesy. If you actually tried it, you
would find that people (at least people other than yourself) respond
much better to calm, reasoned, well articulated argument that considers
the other person's points and addresses them, than to foolish, angry
tirades that entirely ignore the other person's valid objections.
b...@powerbasic.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
> What about the required fax number? It is even more common to *not* have a
> fax machine at home.
The truth would be such a refreshing change.
A fax number is not a required entry. Never has been. Never will be.
Your initial telephone number entry contained zeros. It didn't match
the telephone number on file, so it was flagged as an exception.
The fact is -- our PowerBASIC representative exchanged several emails
with you. The first was to politely inform you that your telephone
number was a problem, and would need to be corrected. He asked if you
would like to try again? If not, he would have helped you with the
process.
You responded by saying you wished to try again. You asked if a
particular telephone number format was needed. He politely replied
that the format was unimportant, only that we needed to verify a match
with the number on file. He asked you to enter the correct number so
it could be verified and you agreed to do so.
You tried again, but this time you knowingly and intentionally entered
a false telephone number of 12345678. Our representative saw that you
weren't being cooperative, but decided to "go the extra mile for
you". Even though you refused to confirm your contact
information... even though you intentionally provided false
information... he approved your download anyway. You have the
software today. He tried very hard to treat you with normal business
respect.
Our representative then told you that refusal to provide contact
information would not work in the future. If you can't or won't
identify yourself, we will not approve a download. He was hoping you
would reconsider your antagonism, and just agree to identify yourself
next time. Apparently, you refuse. That's your choice, not ours.
So, in the future, you can easily obtain PowerBASIC updates by mail.
When we mail it to you, we know that the software is being directed to
a licensed person, not a pirate.
Olav, we have treated you with respect. We have the right to expect
the same from you.
For our efforts, you have called me a bastard. You've said I am sick
and evil. You've said I am a false god. You've said I am a member of
the mafia. I deserve an apology for those things, but I don't expect
one. That's very sad.
I hope you enjoy the free software we provided.
Olav Bergesen
Do you really? What give you a reason to say that what goes for those you
know also applies for everone else in the world.
What a narrow minded person you are!!
> The people reading these newsgroups only know you from what you
> write here. Up to this point, what you've written makes you look like a
> ranting childish idiot. There's no doubt that you're ranting. But if
> you're
> not a childish idiot, and do not want people to think that you are, then
> stop acting like one. For one thing, start paying attention to what others
> have written before responding with foolish rants that obviously miss
> the point, as you did above, and have done so many times before.
> And try to make reasonable, responsive posts instead of blathering
> rants. Finally, try to use a little courtesy. If you actually tried it,
> you
> would find that people (at least people other than yourself) respond
> much better to calm, reasoned, well articulated argument that considers
> the other person's points and addresses them, than to foolish, angry
> tirades that entirely ignore the other person's valid objections.
> --
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Better to be stupid than a ass-licking fool like yourself.
--
OB
Judson McClendon
Okay Stupid, what part of "how many people do you know who download
software from the internet and do not have a phone?" do you not understand?
Do you see the question mark? If you disagreed, you could have simply said
"Oh, I know lots of them?" or some such. Instead, you provide *no* counter
information, only useless rants. If you are correct, then *defend your position
with facts!* If you can't defend your position, then admit you are wrong.
What you do is not only stupid, it is intellectual dishonesty.
> Better to be stupid than a ass-licking fool like yourself.
And you think comments like that commend respect?
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192108157.4...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Olav Bergesen wrote:
>> What about the required fax number? It is even more common to *not* have
>> a
>> fax machine at home.
>
>
> The truth would be such a refreshing change.
Well, you should start telling it then.
> A fax number is not a required entry. Never has been. Never will be.
Yes it is.The Web form stated - in small red print - that all the
information was required. The fax number info was not listed as an
exception.
> Your initial telephone number entry contained zeros. It didn't match
> the telephone number on file, so it was flagged as an exception.
No, I entered a set of zero's just like I did with previously
downloads.There was no problems then.
> The fact is -- our PowerBASIC representative exchanged several emails
> with you. The first was to politely inform you that your telephone
> number was a problem, and would need to be corrected. He asked if you
> would like to try again? If not, he would have helped you with the
> process.
No. This is what the email said:
[...]
I think you mad a small error in your phone
number? Would you like to try again?
Regards,
Tim
[...]
Nothing here about help.This was the first email from you after my first
attempt to download, which failed with a message like:
"We cannot complete you download at this time".Very informative, don't you
think so? At this stage no fax number had been enetr. Just a set of zero's
for the phone number, as done with perviously downloads with success.
>
> You responded by saying you wished to try again. You asked if a
> particular telephone number format was needed. He politely replied
> that the format was unimportant, only that we needed to verify a match
> with the number on file. He asked you to enter the correct number so
> it could be verified and you agreed to do so.
True. I did enter the set of zero's a second time. Still the same error
message.
>
> You tried again, but this time you knowingly and intentionally entered
> a false telephone number of 12345678.
This was the third time, and no explanation from you why the phone number
wasn't accepted.
At this stage it should be quite obvious to you that I was me, and not
somebody else since
I had given you correct name, address, country, email and serial numbers
>Our representative saw that you
> weren't being cooperative, but decided to "go the extra mile for
> you". Even though you refused to confirm your contact
> information... even though you intentionally provided false
> information... he approved your download anyway. You have the
> software today. He tried very hard to treat you with normal business
> respect.
I have shown some of the emails here. Where in those mails does the your
respect shine so bright?
I have told og showed you that I had verified my identity.See above. What
more do you need? My shoe size??
>
> Our representative then told you that refusal to provide contact
> information would not work in the future. If you can't or won't
> identify yourself, we will not approve a download. He was hoping you
> would reconsider your antagonism, and just agree to identify yourself
> next time. Apparently, you refuse. That's your choice, not ours.
> So, in the future, you can easily obtain PowerBASIC updates by mail.
> When we mail it to you, we know that the software is being directed to
> a licensed person, not a pirate.
Bullshit. Do I have to tell once more? I already had verified my identity.
The emails proves that.
But you saw the situation as a chance to do what you like best.Namely to
boss around with people if they don't pee's your back on your command.
> Olav, we have treated you with respect. We have the right to expect
> the same from you.
You have treated me like I should have comitted a seriously crime.Using
words like lies and false; I have wonder if I actually was standing trial
before the jugde or not.Well, I was. Not a lawfull jugde though, but you.
> For our efforts, you have called me a bastard. You've said I am sick
> and evil. You've said I am a false god. You've said I am a member of
> the mafia. I deserve an apology for those things, but I don't expect
> one. That's very sad.
Start to see things from your customers point of view(all of them) , and I
shall consider such an apology.
But you have for years acted like you do, and I don't think you will nor can
change, in this respect
> I hope you enjoy the free software we provided.
Free? Have I not paid for all the 8 products I have purchased from you over
the last 12 years?
--
OB
Olav Bergesen
Christian you ought to know the golden rule:
"Do onto others like you wants others to do onto you".Since you broke this
rule I'm not comitted to keep this rule myself, towards you.
This goes for your guru and god , MR Zale too.
--
OB
--
Michael Mattias
news:470e...@proxy.mimer.no...
>
> Better to be stupid than a ass-licking fool like yourself.
Finally! Some quality prose!
And to think I thought this thread had degenerated into nothing more than
juvenile name-calling.
MCM
H-Man
Isn't that the truth. My problem with many of the compiler options out
there, and I've been bit more than once, is that as a newer version comes
out, support for older versions dries up really quick, the exceptions to
this are the MS Basic compilers, community support remains strong even for
legacy products. RealBasic was one that as a new version was released, even
community support became weak, as most upgraded reasonably quickly. I don't
know how PowerBasic fares regarding this, but have found that because
PureBasic offers free upgrades the product support, it doesn't cost me to
continue to use the product and still get support. PureBasic support is
largely community based, but is very active and helpful. The primary issue
for me is long term cost as I mostly use the product for myself, not to
generate revenue.
For now I've found this to be my best solution, but as you've indicated,
this could change should the developer simply lose interest. So far however
PureBasic has been around since 1998, almost 10 years, which is eons in the
software business so I'm satisfied that it'll be around for a while longer.
For the number of free upgrades I've received so far, I've saved many
hundreds of dollars over what PowerBasic might have cost me. I'm not sure
what more PowerBasic might do for me for the additional cost.
--
HK
Judson McClendon
>
> Finally! Some quality prose!
>
> And to think I thought this thread had degenerated into nothing more than juvenile name-calling.
LOL!
I really regret responding to Olav at all. It's not the anger or epithets
that bother me, it's the blindness, the total unwillingness to listen to
reason at any level, or even respond with reason. I just can't fathom
this kind of blind bone-headedness. I keep thinking that surely, if
you just explained things patiently enough and well enough, people
like Olav would eventually "get it." Sadly very, very few ever do.
Solomon was right when he wrote:
"Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed
grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him." (Proverbs 27:22)
That pretty well sums it up.
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
H-Man
/SNIP/
> I do read this thread a bit differently than you do, I see a big problem on
> both sides. As a GM for a company I can see many ways for Bob to "make this
> right" but chooses not to, this is of course his option, I am not intending
> to cast stones here. If not for your recommendation, I might have never
> further considered PB in light of this thread, but in the future I may take
> the plunge. Either way I certainly hope that Bob can find a way to satisfy
> his customers, even the ones with short fuses.
I'd like to retract much of this in light of the recent additions to this
thread. IMO this has gone way too far over something as simple as a phone
number, but the offended customer in this case has gone way too far in
voicing his displeasure. This could have been easily resolved if the
customer had simply requested his on file telephone number be changed to
whatever fictional number he chooses, as simple as an address change if you
will. If PB already has his correct phone number on file, (Mr. Zale said
that the customer has given it with the original registration, if I
understand this correctly) certainly it is not an issue to confirm it, is
it? Should be less of an issue to change it then, right?
My opinion is that the dissatisfied customer should approach the company as
a customer with an issue to be resolved, with a logical approach, not from
the standpoint of "you won't do it my way, I've been victimized". Seems
there is enough room for a solution here without all of the ranting. Has
anyone ever asked PB if they could change the on file phone number to match
whatever the customer wants it to be?
--
HK
Judson McClendon
>
> I'd like to retract much of this in light of the recent additions to this
> thread. IMO this has gone way too far over something as simple as a phone
> number, but the offended customer in this case has gone way too far in
> voicing his displeasure. This could have been easily resolved if the
> customer had simply requested his on file telephone number be changed to
> whatever fictional number he chooses, as simple as an address change if you
> will. If PB already has his correct phone number on file, (Mr. Zale said
> that the customer has given it with the original registration, if I
> understand this correctly) certainly it is not an issue to confirm it, is
> it? Should be less of an issue to change it then, right?
>
> My opinion is that the dissatisfied customer should approach the company as
> a customer with an issue to be resolved, with a logical approach, not from
> the standpoint of "you won't do it my way, I've been victimized". Seems
> there is enough room for a solution here without all of the ranting. Has
> anyone ever asked PB if they could change the on file phone number to match
> whatever the customer wants it to be?
Bob Zale said they already authorized Olav to download the update, and
that Olav had done so. The only remaining issue with the phone number
appears to be that, for some unfathomable reason, Olav doesn't want to
give his phone number again for future downloads, even though PB
already has his phone number. To me this is such an irrational position
it boggles my mind.
Of much greater import, in my opinion, is that Bob Zale insists that Olav
has been violating the copyrights of PB and others, and refuses to talk
about it. Assuming what Bob says is correct, Olav could be subject to
legal action from PB or the "others." Recon Olav would take the same
contemptuous, denigrating attitude with a subpoena and a judge? I don't
know, but it would probably be interesting to watch. :-)
b...@powerbasic.com
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "H-Man" <I-H...@Spam.sucks> wrote:
Let's be clear. Olav has his problems, but I've never suggested he
violated a copyright. Olav chose to attach his rant to another
thread. In that thread, I stated that there were copyright issues
which needed to be discussed and clarified. They did not involve
Olav, and there were no accusations of infringement.
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.
H-Man
//SNIP//
>
> Bob Zale said they already authorized Olav to download the update, and
> that Olav had done so. The only remaining issue with the phone number
> appears to be that, for some unfathomable reason, Olav doesn't want to
> give his phone number again for future downloads, even though PB
> already has his phone number. To me this is such an irrational position
> it boggles my mind.
>
> Of much greater import, in my opinion, is that Bob Zale insists that Olav
> has been violating the copyrights of PB and others, and refuses to talk
> about it. Assuming what Bob says is correct, Olav could be subject to
> legal action from PB or the "others." Recon Olav would take the same
> contemptuous, denigrating attitude with a subpoena and a judge? I don't
> know, but it would probably be interesting to watch. :-)
It is somewhat puzzling that someone who is clearly a programmer cannot see
logic in all of this. Perhaps it's that programmers are made up of two
types, the more logical and the more artistic. Some people are really
talented and can reside on both sides. I personally am much more logical
(left brained if you will) than artistic. Perhaps Olav is very right
brained and is showing his artistic temperament. Either way I still believe
some degree of requesting help in resolving this as opposed to demanding it
might have led to a much different outcome.
As always, this is simply opinion on my part.
--
HK
Jim Thompson
I think this thread has approached absolute uselessness :-(
Plonk!
Olav Bergesen
"H-Man" <I-H...@Spam.sucks> skrev i melding
news:470e6b57$0$90420$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:24:21 -0500, Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> //SNIP//
>>
>> Bob Zale said they already authorized Olav to download the update, and
>> that Olav had done so. The only remaining issue with the phone number
>> appears to be that, for some unfathomable reason, Olav doesn't want to
>> give his phone number again for future downloads, even though PB
>> already has his phone number. To me this is such an irrational position
>> it boggles my mind.
Mr Zale was wrong when he said that I had given him my phone number.
I enter a phone number, long time ago, containing a set of 0's, and that was
accepted back then
But this time my contact info wasn't accepted.No one has a phone number
consisting of 8 0's.
And just that. ot in my country at least.
To sum it up:PB does not have me real phone number. They don't need it for
any reason I know of
And I have no intention to give them my phone number either.If it true that
MR Zale respect his customers; he should be able to respect this.
--
OB
[clip]
Olav Bergesen
"Michael Mattias" <mmat...@talsystems.com> skrev i melding
news:6KrPi.2211$lE2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> "Olav Bergesen" <o...@nordmann.on> wrote in message
> news:470e...@proxy.mimer.no...
>>
>> Better to be stupid than a ass-licking fool like yourself.
>
>
> Finally! Some quality prose!
You won't say. May be I finally hit the correct grammar, for once.
--
OB
b...@powerbasic.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
> Mr Zale was wrong when he said that I had given him my phone number.
Olav --
This could almost become humorous if it weren't so sad. Shall I post
your telephone number here in the News Groups to prove you gave it to
us? To prove you aren't being truthful?
b...@powerbasic.com
b...@powerbasic.com wrote:
> Olav Bergesen wrote:
> > Mr Zale was wrong when he said that I had given him my phone number.
> > To sum it up:PB does not have me real phone number.
>
Olav --
I'm still waiting for your response? May I have your explicit
permission to post your telephone number here in these News Groups?
If you didn't give the number to PowerBASIC, you have nothing to
fear. It's not your number. But, if your accusations are once again
false, you may receive a few thousand telephone calls.
May I please have your permission to post your telephone number?
Michael Mattias
news:1192140604....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> May I please have your permission to post your telephone number?
Real Men Don't Need No Stinkin' Permission.
However, Real Gentlemen Do.
MCM
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192136121....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I mean to recall that you , in another message, verified that I gave you a
phone number consisting of zero's.
If you claim to have another number than this, which is mine, and you want
to publish it, this clearly shows that your customers can't relay on your
privacy policy.
If you have my number, does not prove that I gave it to you. You may have
collected in some other way.I never give out my phonenumber in any web form.
--
OB
Olav Bergesen
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192140604....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> b...@powerbasic.com wrote:
>> Olav Bergesen wrote:
>> > Mr Zale was wrong when he said that I had given him my phone number.
>> > To sum it up:PB does not have me real phone number.
>>
>
> Olav --
>
> I'm still waiting for your response? May I have your explicit
> permission to post your telephone number here in these News Groups?
> If you didn't give the number to PowerBASIC, you have nothing to
> fear. It's not your number. But, if your accusations are once again
> false, you may receive a few thousand telephone calls.
In my country this is called telephone terror, and is considered to be an
punishable act of crime.
>
> May I please have your permission to post your telephone number?
Even if you had it you may NOT post it.I hav etold you before that I never
give away my phone number in any web form.
b...@powerbasic.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
> <b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
> news:1192140604....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > b...@powerbasic.com wrote:
> >> Olav Bergesen wrote:
> >> > Mr Zale was wrong when he said that I had given him my phone number.
> >> > To sum it up:PB does not have me real phone number.
> >>
> >
> > Olav --
> "Even if you had it you may NOT post it..."
Hi Olav--
Thank you for confirming what everyone else already suspected. I'll
keep your telephone number private, as always intended.
The truth is, it would have been much more fun if you had the courage
to say "Sure... POST IT". But, I do understand your fear of thousands
of phone calls, were I to post the real number you gave us. That's
why I would have replaced some of the digits with asterisks. We would
never really harm you. We offer our customers respect. Even you.
This was just a little game to bring out the truth from you.
I hope you enjoy the free update we provided to you. Have a nice day.
Best regards,
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC, Inc.
Olav Bergesen
news:1192187118.0...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why not email me the contact info you have on me?
Is that too much to ask? BTW, you could have done this long time ago. Other
companies do it this way.They don't call their cutsomer liers, you did so in
a mail, and falsemakers because of a customer's eventually moment of memory
loss, about the info in one web form field.
Have it ever occured to you that the difference in phonenumbers is fully
explainable? Have it ever occured to you that the truth in a case; not
necessarily is what it may look like at first glance? Why was you never
interested to investigate this?
Why wasn't you interested when I made an attempt to start a dialogue, based
on communication, in a hope to sort out the problem?
The reply I got from you when I tried was :
"Your download ability is permanently revoked. Have a
nice day."
Nothing more and nothing less.This was the only phrase in the email.
Do you mean to say that what above shown, shows the interest you had to
help, in order to sort out the problem?
Don't forget to send me my contact info, so I can see for myself what you
have register on me.
--
OB
b...@powerbasic.com
You've shown your true self. A very troubled man whose only interest
is to use vile, disgusting language. In public, nonetheless.
I hope you enjoy the free update we gave you.
b...@powerbasic.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
> Why not email me the contact info you have on me?
No, thank you. The reasons are:
1- I don't handle clerical details for the company.
2- We don't discuss such matters in a public forum.
3- I'm far too busy countering your abusive attacks with the truth.
If you have a clerical request, kindly contact PowerBASIC Customer
Service.
Olav Bergesen
year to you and your company.
--
OB
<b...@powerbasic.com> skrev i melding
news:1192205600....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
All customer service goes through you.
>
b...@powerbasic.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
> Case closed. Goodbye Mr. Zale, and may the rest of the year beome a rotten
> year to you and your company.
You constructed an entire email without a single vulgarity. I
consider that quite a compliment. Thank you.
Best regards,
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.
Anonymous Coward
Olav Bergesen wrote:
>Several customer has left Powerbasic over the past ten years, or so.
>Some because Bob Zale have refused them to be a customer of PB.
I refuse to ask for help from PB because I am afraid that I will be blacklisted.
I need PB to do my job and cannot risk not being allowed to upgrade. I am a geek.
Bob Zale is a geek. We may end up butting heads. This is normal among geeks. The
problem is when one of the geeks has the power to destroy the livelihood of the
other geek. At that point disputes are "resolved" based on fear or retribution
rather than technical merits.
Jim Thompson
Such an appropriate pseudonym ;-)
Judson McClendon
>
> I refuse to ask for help from PB because I am afraid that I will be blacklisted.
> I need PB to do my job and cannot risk not being allowed to upgrade. I am a geek.
> Bob Zale is a geek. We may end up butting heads. This is normal among geeks. The
> problem is when one of the geeks has the power to destroy the livelihood of the
> other geek. At that point disputes are "resolved" based on fear or retribution
> rather than technical merits.
??? Why would PowerBASIC, or any other company wanting to make a
profit from customers, "blacklist" a customer merely because they asked
for help? Any merits or deficiencies of PowerBASIC and Bob Zale aside,
that does not make sense. Any company must have satisfied customers to
keep making a profit.
I don't necessarily like everything PowerBASIC does, but if they were as
nefarious as you suggest, they would have alienated so many customers they
would have been out of business long ago.
Anyway, how could PowerBASIC "destroy your livelihood?" Are you
dependent on them for business? If PowerBASIC ceased doing business
with you, you would still have the compiler(s) you have already purchased.
I still use a COBOL compiler that is several years old, because the vendor
changed their licensing policy to one I couldn't accept. But the old compiler
still works as well as it ever did. I'm sure many programmers are still using
Visual Studio 6, or earlier versions, and I'm also sure many PowerBASIC
programmers are still using older versions. The compiler vendors who can
"destroy your livelihood" are the ones who have to approve any time you
install the compiler. They have you by the throat, for sure, and I hate that.
But once you have your serial number, you can reinstall PowerBASIC
without approval from them. Even Microsoft hasn't gone that far yet, with
development tools.
Peter Manders
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On 25 Nov 2007 22:31:28 GMT, Anonymous Coward <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Olav Bergesen wrote:
>>
>>>Several customer has left Powerbasic over the past ten years, or so.
>>>Some because Bob Zale have refused them to be a customer of PB.
>>
>>I refuse to ask for help from PB because I am afraid that I will be blacklisted.
>>I need PB to do my job and cannot risk not being allowed to upgrade. I am a geek.
>>Bob Zale is a geek. We may end up butting heads. This is normal among geeks. The
>>problem is when one of the geeks has the power to destroy the livelihood of the
>>other geek. At that point disputes are "resolved" based on fear or retribution
>>rather than technical merits.
>
>Such an appropriate pseudonym ;-)
Very common name on <http://www.slashdot.org>. A great site for geeks.
I think he's got more problems, besides being a geek...
--
Peter Manders.
"640 HP ought to be enough for anybody."
Thomas Gohel
Hello Judson,
> ??? Why would PowerBASIC, or any other company wanting to make a
> profit from customers, "blacklist" a customer merely because they
> asked for help?
>
> Any merits or deficiencies of PowerBASIC and Bob Zale
> aside, that does not make sense. Any company must have satisfied
> customers to keep making a profit.
Don't know, ask PowerBASIC.
On the other hand, it's only an one men show. Seems to be enough
money on the bank for the old age pension. ,-)
> Anyway, how could PowerBASIC "destroy your livelihood?"
Yes that's interesting. There a lot alternatives on the market.
Regards,
--------------
/ h o m a s
--
email : sup...@gohel.de / go...@basicguru.de (PGP-Key available)
www : http://www.gohel.de / http://www.pbhq.de (PowerBASIC)
fax/bbs: +49-30-47300910 (VFC, V34+, X75, ISDN, CCB, 9600-128000bps)
b...@powerbasic.com
Anonymous Coward wrote:
>
> I refuse to ask for help from PB because I am afraid that I will be blacklisted.
> I need PB to do my job and cannot risk not being allowed to upgrade. I am a geek.
> Bob Zale is a geek. We may end up butting heads. This is normal among geeks. The
> problem is when one of the geeks has the power to destroy the livelihood of the
> other geek. At that point disputes are "resolved" based on fear or retribution
> rather than technical merits.
Well, Mark Baker seems to have a very active imagination.
PowerBASIC maintains a short list of folks with whom we will not do
business. One may join this elite group by engaging in criminal
activities. Using a stolen credit card, participating in software
piracy, filing a false credit card dispute, and some similar playful
activities. I hope few will aspire to join this group any time soon.
Anything beyond that is fantasy.
Has anyone noticed that PowerBASIC is one of very few software
publishers that still offers free technical support to our customers?
Has anyone noticed that PowerBASIC offers an amazing amount of free
programming information on the PowerBASIC FORUMS at www.powerbasic.com?
Over 300,000 contibutions from good programmers just like you? If a
customer chooses to avoid our free help, I guess that's ok, but it
sure seems pretty short-sighted to me. Actually, I guess it saves us
money, so who can argue with that? {smile}
Anyway, the real truth is that PowerBASIC free support is extensive
and well known. We invite all of our friends to use it to their best
advantage.
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.
CS
prefer USENET and mailing lists, but the forums aren't that hard to use
and read.
I'm vocal in that I wish that I could use PB on my Mac natively, instead
of running via DOSBox or Parallels. Oh, well.
Anyone convinced you can't get help on the forums or find 20 or so good
"alternatives" to PB is kidding himself. I just happen to think my "old"
copies of PowerBASIC are better than REALbasic for a lot of things.
Darn, if I could merge the best of each... and end up with a
cross-platform PowerBASIC with GUI support. (Dreaming.)
No matter what, PB is ideal for the crunching of text files I need to do
from time-to-time. About the only issue I ever encounter is UTF
encoding, but most of my raw data are in ASCII and I'm not sure it would
be worth upgrading when what I have works via emulation.
PB's support is pretty amazing, when compared to almost any other
compiler company.
- CSW
inv...@example.com
b...@powerbasic.com wrote:
>When we offer a free update to our customer, there are two possible
>methods of delivery: download or mail. If you wish to download an
>update, you must first confirm your contact information. We compare
>it to the information on file to be sure you are really our customer.
>We want to be sure you are [deleted], not some mean old nasty
>software pirate. {smile}
>
>We don't want your telephone number so we can make a sales call to
>you. In the 24 year history of PowerBASIC, we've never made a sales
>call to any customer. We want you to tell us your telephone number so
>we can compare it to the number on file to be certain this is really
>you. Not some sick and evil software pirate. {smile} We already
>know your telephone number -- you gave it to us with your original
>order. We want to compare it with today's data. Once we have
>sufficient information to be certain you are really [deleted], we
>release your free download.
Asking for the last four digits would accomplish the same thing
while also giving comfort to those who are reluctant to provde
a phone number. Some people only have a cell phone that charges
for each incoming call.
That still leaves the problem of those who have no phone number
(many deaf people nowdays use only email and no longer use TDD).
If you deny the any rights or even privileges (and yes, I agree
that free updates are a privilage) to them because of that, you
are in violation of the disabilities laws. You don't have to
offer free downloads, but once you have decided to offer them,
you must offer them to deaf people as well as those who can hear.
inv...@example.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
>I gave you the very same contact info I always have given you,
>but this time the info was not accepted.A slight error in the
>phone number; I was told. I have always used a set of zeros
>in the phone number, as far I can remeber it, just to indicate
>clearly that it is not a valid number and that I have no interest
>in giving away my phone number.
That is a bad choice for dealing with situations where a web
form demands a phone number. 000-000-0000 is a valid number
that leads to yourblocal operator on the first digit. :(
Next time use 555-555-5555 instead. That number will never be
assigned.
Same thing with social security numbers, BTW. 555-55-5555 is
a better choice than 00-000-0000; some webforms won't accept
all zeros.
inv...@example.com
Olav Bergesen wrote:
>If so,you should remove me from the gazette list. I just
>received an email from you saying that my request about
>this had been rejected. "SPAM REJECTED" the mail said.
Every mailing list should have a dedicated remove address,
and that address should have no spam filtering on it at
all. There should also be an unsubscribe URL.
inv...@example.com
Judson McClendon wrote:
>Okay Stupid, what part of "how many people do you know who download
>software from the internet and do not have a phone?" do you not
>understand?
>any person who is "connected" enough to have Internet access and
>a compiler to run a compiler on will also be "connected" enough to
>have a phone line. I know lots of people who have Internet access
>without a landline telephone, but all of them have cell phones or VOIP.
And if Judson McClendon cannot imagine something, then it must not
exist. You are insisting that deaf people who use only email (TDD
is rapidly being replaced by email) must either buy a phone that
they cannot use or not be allowed to purchase software. Nice!
>Bob Zale said they already authorized Olav to download the update, and
>that Olav had done so. The only remaining issue with the phone number
>appears to be that, for some unfathomable reason, Olav doesn't want to
>give his phone number again for future downloads, even though PB
>already has his phone number. To me this is such an irrational position
>it boggles my mind.
I see no evidence that Olav ever gave PB a valid phone number.
Reading between the lines, I suspect that he gave them
000-000-0000 when he bought PB and when he tried to download
the upgrade. Or maybe not, but I would certainly expect you
to consider that possibility before name-calling.
>Of much greater import, in my opinion, is that Bob Zale
>insists that Olav has been violating the copyrights of
>PB and others,
Get your facts straight, flamer. That was Thomas G. not Olav.
Auric__
> Olav Bergesen wrote:
>
>>I gave you the very same contact info I always have given you,
>>but this time the info was not accepted.A slight error in the
>>phone number; I was told. I have always used a set of zeros
>>in the phone number, as far I can remeber it, just to indicate
>>clearly that it is not a valid number and that I have no interest
>>in giving away my phone number.
>
> That is a bad choice for dealing with situations where a web
> form demands a phone number. 000-000-0000 is a valid number
> that leads to yourblocal operator on the first digit. :(
In the US, yes. In other countries, maybe, maybe not. IIRC Olav said
he's in Europe.
> Next time use 555-555-5555 instead. That number will never be
> assigned.
That might be a valid phone number in countries outside the US. Just
because you're in the US doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.
> Same thing with social security numbers, BTW. 555-55-5555 is
> a better choice than 00-000-0000; some webforms won't accept
> all zeros.
Again, only applies to those in the US. (Where are you going on the
Internet that requires your SSN, anyway)?
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
email sent to the above address is not treated as private
*****
Beginnings are such delicate times.
Tom Lake
>>a compiler to run a compiler on will also be "connected" enough to
>>have a phone line. I know lots of people who have Internet access
>>without a landline telephone, but all of them have cell phones or VOIP.
OK, maybe whoever posted this originally doesn't know of anyone
who doesn't have a phone, but I certainly do (several in fact).
ALL their communications are via Internet. They don't own a cell phone or
PDA. If they're not at their desk or at home, you can't reach them. That's
the way they like it.
Tom Lake
Auric__
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>>Okay Stupid, what part of "how many people do you know who download
>>software from the internet and do not have a phone?" do you not
>>understand?
>
>>any person who is "connected" enough to have Internet access and
>>a compiler to run a compiler on will also be "connected" enough to
>>have a phone line. I know lots of people who have Internet access
>>without a landline telephone, but all of them have cell phones or
>>VOIP.
>
> And if Judson McClendon cannot imagine something, then it must not
> exist. You are insisting that deaf people who use only email (TDD
> is rapidly being replaced by email) must either buy a phone that
> they cannot use or not be allowed to purchase software. Nice!
TTY uses phone lines. If a deaf person wishes to make a phone call, they
connect to a TTY operator who then places the actual phone call. (Note:
My info is several years old; the TTY system may have been updated since
I was in high school.)
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
email sent to the above address is not treated as private
*****
- How will I know when Hell freezes over?
- It'll probably be in the newspaper.
Judson McClendon
>
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>>Okay Stupid, what part of "how many people do you know who download
>>software from the internet and do not have a phone?" do you not
>>understand?
>
>>any person who is "connected" enough to have Internet access and
>>a compiler to run a compiler on will also be "connected" enough to
>>have a phone line. I know lots of people who have Internet access
>>without a landline telephone, but all of them have cell phones or VOIP.
>
> And if Judson McClendon cannot imagine something, then it must not
> exist. You are insisting that deaf people who use only email (TDD
> is rapidly being replaced by email) must either buy a phone that
> they cannot use or not be allowed to purchase software. Nice!
Why didn't you actually read the post you *partially* quoted from? I was
responding to comments about people not *having* a phone, not people
who didn't want to release their phone numbers.
>>Bob Zale said they already authorized Olav to download the update, and
>>that Olav had done so. The only remaining issue with the phone number
>>appears to be that, for some unfathomable reason, Olav doesn't want to
>>give his phone number again for future downloads, even though PB
>>already has his phone number. To me this is such an irrational position
>>it boggles my mind.
>
> I see no evidence that Olav ever gave PB a valid phone number.
> Reading between the lines, I suspect that he gave them
> 000-000-0000 when he bought PB and when he tried to download
> the upgrade. Or maybe not, but I would certainly expect you
> to consider that possibility before name-calling.
Why don't you consider actually reading my posts before responding?
I used the word "stupid" because of the way Olav was acting *here*
toward me, in this newsgroup, not anything between he and Bob Zale.
Judson McClendon
They don't have VOIP? No way to actually speak with anyone else, other
than face to face? Yet they have a computer, Internet access and are techie
enough to have purchased a BASIC compiler (which is what I described)?
I doubt there are large numbers of people like that.
inv...@example.com
Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>"Tom Lake" <tl...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>any person who is "connected" enough to have Internet access and
>>>>a compiler to run a compiler on will also be "connected" enough to
>>>>have a phone line. I know lots of people who have Internet access
>>>>without a landline telephone, but all of them have cell phones or VOIP.
>>
>> OK, maybe whoever posted this originally doesn't know of anyone
>> who doesn't have a phone, but I certainly do (several in fact).
>> ALL their communications are via Internet. They don't own a cell phone or
>> PDA. If they're not at their desk or at home, you can't reach them.
>> That's the way they like it.
>
>They don't have VOIP? No way to actually speak with anyone else, other
>than face to face? Yet they have a computer, Internet access and are techie
>enough to have purchased a BASIC compiler (which is what I described)?
>I doubt there are large numbers of people like that.
No. They don't have VOIP. You appear to be unable to understand the
basic truth of like that some people have preferences that you don't
have, just as you appear to be unable to understand that people who
cannot hear do not, as a rule, spend money for telephones that they
cannot use.
Claiming that everyone has a phone again and again doesn't make it
true. People who don't like to use phones exist. People who
cannot use phones exist. In fact, 3.5% of US adults don't have
a phone, and 90% of the population in India has no phone. Large
areas of the world have no telephone or cellphone service available
to individual homes but do have local Internet Cafes. Deal with it.
Frank Cox
> Hello,
>
> I'm bannend from the PowerBASIC forums, due the following article: ;-)
Join the club. I got banned the other day for answering a question
(challenge?) that Bob Zale asked me.
The gory details:
I have stated in the past that PowerBASIC/Linux was promised "real soon
now" for the past several years. Bob told me to back that up with
facts. I gave him some examples of past messages and comments about it,
and Bob stated that I was "not telling the truth". In fact, he even sent
me a "private message" where he said "See what happens when you don't
tell the truth."
I then did some more research and found a message in the PB Forum
archives.
It was posted on the PowerBASIC web forum by Dave Navarro on March
25,1999, and states “Yes, as announced at Fall Comdex 98, we will have a
compiler for Linux some time this year. No other information is available
at this time.”
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Archives/Archive-000003/
HTML/20020806-5-000273.html
I think that should meet anyone's definition of "real soon now".
I posted this bit of information in the forum and within the next hour my
post had been deleted and my access to the forum was revoked. When I
tried logging in again the following day I discovered that my IP address
has also been banned from the website -- apparently I'm not even allowed
to read it any more.
So ultimately, Bob has a thread on his web forum where he inaccurately
states that my comment about "real soon now" was a lie, and I am not
permitted to show otherwise.
So much for "See what happens when you don't tell the truth" I guess.
*sigh*
I notice that Bob tries to push folks to his web forum instead of using
the newsgroups. With apparent success, as these newsgroups are pretty
inactive. He doesn't get to ban people from the newsgroups and delete
posts containing information that he doesn't like.
A while ago (maybe a year or so) I posted a comment on his forum that
mentioned FreeBASIC on Linux in passing. He sent me a "private message"
then, too, and told me that his web forum is PRIVATE PROPERTY and I am
not allowed to mention other basic compilers on his private property.
After that I didn't bother logging back into his forum for quite some
time, for reasons that should be fairly obvious by now.
Now it appears that I can't log into his forum even if I wanted to, to
correct his erroneous statement about me "telling the truth".
It's a shame, really.
I have purchased and extensively used every DOS version of PowerBASIC
ever since it was Turbo Basic 1.0. I have written software to do
everything from count BBS messages to controlling survey instruments and
printing presses and I use PB 3.5 to this day on Linux under DOSEMU.
PowerBASIC/DOS is truly one hell of a compiler -- I used Windows 98 for
one month and decided I didn't like it so I have never tried any of the
Windows compilers as they are irrelevant to what I do.
PowerBASIC (the company) or Bob Zale, or both, seem to be somewhat
schizophrenic.
A few years ago, it came to my attention that there were PDF versions of
the manuals for PowerBASIC/DOS. I asked how or if I could get those, as
I already had the paper manuals but it would be convenient to have a PDF
version that I could keep on my computer as well. Bob replied that I
should just email them my serial number and they would set me up with a
download. I did, and they did. And I got the PDF manuals. At the time,
I thought, "Now that's the way to treat a long-term customer!" I was
extremely impressed, and frankly I still am. (The PDF manuals are indeed
quite convenient on occasion, though I use the paper manuals more
frequently.)
And now I'm banned from the PB forum because I responded to Bob's
assertion that I was somehow lying when I said "real soon now", and
provided proof that my statement was correct.
See what I mean about schizophrenic?
I can do nothing but echo Thomas's remark in his previous message: "The
truth is hard. Shame on you Bob, for your discussion stil and your
censorship."
Shame, indeed.
Auric__
> I have stated in the past that PowerBASIC/Linux was promised "real
> soon now" for the past several years. Bob told me to back that up
> with facts. I gave him some examples of past messages and comments
> about it, and Bob stated that I was "not telling the truth". In
> fact, he even sent me a "private message" where he said "See what
> happens when you don't tell the truth."
>
> I then did some more research and found a message in the PB Forum
> archives.
>
> It was posted on the PowerBASIC web forum by Dave Navarro on March
> 25,1999, and states “Yes, as announced at Fall Comdex 98, we will
> have a compiler for Linux some time this year. No other information
> is available at this time.”
>
> http://www.powerbasic.com/support/forums/Archives/Archive-000003/
> HTML/20020806-5-000273.html
>
> I think that should meet anyone's definition of "real soon now".
So? I'll bet that they were working on it, then did some sort of
analysis that showed how many units they could reasonably expect to
sell vs. the total cost of developing and maintaining a Linux version,
and decided that it was a losing prospect. Big deal -- products get
cancelled all the time.
Many, many companies decide not to develop for Linux because they
don't expect a return on their investment. Companies write software
for the platforms that people are using, and right now, for the vast
majority of people, that's Windows.
Until Linux becomes a serious competitor to Windows in the "average
person" market -- as opposed to the "technically knowledgeable
person" market that Linux has -- most companies will continue to write
for Windows, and Windows only. It's the usual "vicious circle". (The
stuff that *I* write usually runs under DOS, Windows, and most POSIX
systems -- but I don't consider myself "average" by any stretch of the
imagination, and I make no attempt to use PB under Linux.)
As for everything else -- the banning, the post removal (the above-
mentioned page has also apparently been removed, although it can be
found on the Wayback Machine), etc. -- all I can say is: [shrug] The
number one rule of any forum has always been "don't annoy the ops" (or
in this case, the owners).
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
they are quick to anger and have no need for subtlety.
Frank Cox
> So? I'll bet that they were working on it, then did some sort of
> analysis that showed how many units they could reasonably expect to sell
> vs. the total cost of developing and maintaining a Linux version, and
> decided that it was a losing prospect. Big deal -- products get
> cancelled all the time.
True. However, until fairly recently the PB website itself used to say
that Linux (or at least "other platforms") was "coming soon enough".
PowerBASIC/Linux was announced at Comdex 98 for release in 1999. That
never happened.
That's the factual information, but Bob Zale accused me of lying and
banned me when I provided proof of my statement.
> As for everything else -- the banning, the post removal (the above-
> mentioned page has also apparently been removed, although it can be
> found on the Wayback Machine), etc. -- all I can say is: [shrug] The
> number one rule of any forum has always been "don't annoy the ops" (or
> in this case, the owners).
Well, in this case what I find to be most wrong is that Bob is intent on
making it appear that I lied. Which is absolutely incorrect and unfair.
Until you told me just now, I hadn't realized that he has now also
removed the web page that contained the information that I referred to.
As you say, it's still available on the wayback machine. Don't you find
it interesting that someone who is very fast off of the mark to demand
that others "tell the truth" suddenly gets very busy hiding the evidence
when shown that he is himself stretching the facts?
This entire issue started when Bob challenged me to prove that PowerBASIC/
Linux had ever been announced as "coming real soon" and accused me of
lying.
I provided the proof.
He deleted my post, banned me from the forum and has now apparently
deleted the actual evidence that I cited as well.
All this from someone who then has the nerve to accuse ME of lying when
he is the one who is now scrambling around, making an attempt to hide the
facts now that they have been discovered and brought into the open.
At this point, it's no longer really about the original question that I
was attempting to answer when someone asked "When is PowerBASIC/Linux
coming?". Bob Zale has demonstrated that he is not prepared to live up
to his own demand that others "tell the truth". He has a thread/post on
his forum where he accuses ME of lying, which is obviously not the case.
Bob Zale's actions in this matter have been dishonourable, dishonest and
hypocritical in the extreme.
And that's the issue.
in...@powerbasic.com
> And now I'm banned from the PB forum because I responded to Bob's
> assertion that I was somehow lying when I said "real soon now", and
> provided proof that my statement was correct.
Frank Cox --
You really should tell the truth, not to mention the "whole truth".
1- You were not "banned" from the PowerBASIC Forums.
2- No action was taken because of a "response" we didn't like.
3- You were temporarily blocked from posting because you attempted to
"flood" our forums with nasty messages at a very high rate. You then
began to flood our emails, too. When folks get out of control, we
have to deal with it.
We'll reconsider that temporary block whenever you're ready to treat
your hosts and your peers with normal business respect. I'm afraid we
can't let one person with a temper make it uncomfortable for everyone
else. Please let us know when you're ready.
Best regards,
Tim Robbins
PowerBASIC Inc.
in...@powerbasic.com
> Bob Zale's actions in this matter have been dishonourable, dishonest and
> hypocritical in the extreme.
Frank Cox--
I guess that means you aren't yet ready to treat anyone here with
normal business respect? <g>
Your false allegation was that 'PB/Linux has been "coming real soon
now" for the past ten years'. Mr. Zale's question was the "real soon
now for 10 years" part, when in fact there were no time frames ever
mentioned other than a single sentence years ago, made by an employee
with no authority to bind the company. Since then, we have clarified
the issue for everyone's benefit a number of times.
I'm sorry this troubles you, but there really is no need to be so
abusive.
Auric__
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:55:16 +0000, Auric__ wrote:
>
>
>> So? I'll bet that they were working on it, then did some sort of
>> analysis that showed how many units they could reasonably expect
>> to sell vs. the total cost of developing and maintaining a Linux
>> version, and decided that it was a losing prospect. Big deal --
>> products get cancelled all the time.
>
> True. However, until fairly recently the PB website itself used to
> say that Linux (or at least "other platforms") was "coming soon
> enough". PowerBASIC/Linux was announced at Comdex 98 for release
> in 1999. That never happened.
>
> That's the factual information, but Bob Zale accused me of lying
> and banned me when I provided proof of my statement.
Again, don't annoy the ops.
>> As for everything else -- the banning, the post removal (the
>> above- mentioned page has also apparently been removed, although
>> it can be found on the Wayback Machine), etc. -- all I can say is:
>> [shrug] The number one rule of any forum has always been "don't
>> annoy the ops" (or in this case, the owners).
>
> Well, in this case what I find to be most wrong is that Bob is
> intent on making it appear that I lied. Which is absolutely
> incorrect and unfair.
Perhaps.
> Until you told me just now, I hadn't realized that he has now also
> removed the web page that contained the information that I referred
> to. As you say, it's still available on the wayback machine. Don't
> you find it interesting that someone who is very fast off of the
> mark to demand that others "tell the truth" suddenly gets very busy
> hiding the evidence when shown that he is himself stretching the
> facts?
No. As a matter of fact, he could make a press release announcing that
the sun has turned blue, or pigs can fly, or that PB Inc. has acquired
Microsoft, and I don't think I'd care much. I'm more concerned with
their products (the ones currently available), and not their actions.
> This entire issue started when Bob challenged me to prove that
> PowerBASIC/ Linux had ever been announced as "coming real soon" and
> accused me of lying.
>
> I provided the proof.
>
> He deleted my post, banned me from the forum and has now apparently
> deleted the actual evidence that I cited as well.
Provide a link to the thread please.
> All this from someone who then has the nerve to accuse ME of lying
> when he is the one who is now scrambling around, making an attempt
> to hide the facts now that they have been discovered and brought
> into the open.
>
> At this point, it's no longer really about the original question
> that I was attempting to answer when someone asked "When is
> PowerBASIC/Linux coming?". Bob Zale has demonstrated that he is
> not prepared to live up to his own demand that others "tell the
> truth". He has a thread/post on his forum where he accuses ME of
> lying, which is obviously not the case.
>
> Bob Zale's actions in this matter have been dishonourable,
> dishonest and hypocritical in the extreme.
>
> And that's the issue.
For the record: I couldn't care less about any alleged wrongdoing by
Mr. Zale or anyone else at PowerBASIC that doesn't cost me money or
end the world, whether or not there's any truth to the allegations. As
long as they keep making great products, I will continue to be a
paying customer. (Of course, a Linux version would make me pay them
*more*, gladly.)
--
I was dead and this gave me life.
Judson McClendon
Tim and Frank,
As a PowerBASIC customer, if PowerBASIC is treating its customers
unfairly, I want to know. And if it isn't, I want to know that, too.
I'm open minded here. I've posted a few mild complaints against one or
another small technical issues in the PowerBASIC compilers over the
years. Don't think I've ever posted a complaint against the company,
who has always given me excellent service. I have heartily recommended
the PowerBASIC products here and elsewhere many times. And I have come
to PowerBASIC and Bob Zale's defense here more than once when these
accusations have been made in the past.
But I would prefer to be able to make a better assessment of these
complaints against PowerBASIC than is possible from the posts to date.
What I would like to see, from both parties, is explicit information
about what Frank Cox and PowerBASIC did. For example, how many messages
over what timeframe constituted that "flood" of messages to the forum
and your emails? And what was the text of Frank's post, and what was
not truth, and what was omitted to make it not the whole truth? What
was the text of PowerBASIC response to Frank? It's not idle curiosity,
and I'm not disputing what anyone said. But the statement "<person>
posted <messagecount> messages in <timeframe> period", is far better
to objectively assess than simply "<person> flooded us with messages."
Thanks!
Frank Cox
As requested, I have forwarded the entire correspondence from me to
b...@powerbasic.com to your email address.
I look forward to your response.