Frankly, I don't grasp the underlying method or the rationale of this approach. User groups are quite common. What's different here? Perhaps a demonstration would help. Let me propose two related real world scenarios:
1) I use Protel 99SE, which is reportedly no longer supported after year's end. Protel DXP was not for me, so I skipped that. Protel 2004 is a mystery to me. I would like to know the following: * What is the productivity rating of Protel 2004 compared to Protel 99SE? * Is Protel 2004 a solid, reliable product, essentially free of bugs? * Does Protel 2004 have a logical structure and natural learning curve? * What is the cost of ownership (updates, support, etc), including intangibles? (eg Protel 99SE was very costly at first in terms of time wasted dealing with all of the problems - now at SP6, and still significant bugs). * Does importing / exporting between OrCad and Protel 99SE work? * Does Situs work? Evaluation via the trial version is problematic. The trial period is too short for this type of product, the trial start date is not at the evaluator's convenience, and the trial version is apt not to be the latest. 2) Simply put, I don't trust Protel 2000. I'm willing to give it a try, but the evaluation is problematic (as stated above). I can't afford to devote a full time block of 30 days for this. I would like to see the evaluation procedure replaced with an ironclad, 100% customer satisfaction, pro-rated one year guaranty: * Full refund up to 120 days. * 75% refund up to 240 days. * 50% refund up to 1 year. This represents a solid deal, rather than the handful of questionable gimmicks presented in the past. If customers like the product, they'll keep it. A few people may indeed abuse the "free" time, but on the other hand, this may trigger a stampede of customers. It's all within normal business risks. The first scenario infers Protel 2000 user involvement and response. The second scenario infers Altium's involvement and response. Crank these two scenarios through your "New Direction Procedure" and show us what happens. PS Objective diligence is preferable to empty slogans. Contrary to the pessimistic claim below, people do "lift fingers", many with good intentions - on the other hand, an errant finger sometimes ends up in someone's face. This is likely to invite a fist full of fingers in response. So if you have a worthwhile goal, use objectivity as the finger that points the way. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Open Topic Forum" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:38 AM Subject: [OT] Political Process -- a new direction. <...yawn and snip...and then the author wrote:> > Does this have anything to do with Protel? Yes. One of the obvious > applications of the kind of direct/proxy democracy represented by my > initiative and the Swedish one, is for user groups. A user group that was > organized according to these concepts would, in fact, represent the users, > it would be not only a way for users to express what they want, coherently > and without bias from the hyperactive special interests who often dominate > such organizations, without requiring more effort than people were willing > to invest. I call these organizations "free associations," and free > associations, by design, would be relatively easy to form and easy to > maintain. <...snip...> > My slogan: > > Lift a finger, save the world. > But most people won't lift a finger. > > True? ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the OT discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/ot_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
