Steve Grammont / 04.11.13 / 2:28PM wrote: >With all due respects, sounds like you've never run a testing department >or, probably, even been in QA for a commercial product.
I probably should stop responding to this thread since we are not going anywhere with this. Yes, I am a musician since I was 10. My master's degree is in music composition, but I was a real QA since 1995 till 9-11 happened. Micro$haft NetMeeting, Lycos parsing engine, and Amazon order parsing engine were few of the products I QAed as a subcontractor. I hope they are qualified commercial product :-) But we are not here to debate QA philosophy, and we are pretty close to pissing contest, which we should avoid (I guess I am guilty as charged as well). >do you think it is practical >to rebuild a computer "fresh" every single time the slightest problem >arises? That's what I am used to. But again, we are talking this at the QA stand point of view, and you are right that you are not QAing PM. My point was that there are so many end users who know nothing about software dev and like to call something a bug too easily, and you and I know dev eng likes to come back to say "it's not a bug" by their trained behavior. >No. You chase down the obvious first, then resort to something >like that only when the obvious is ruled out. Agreed, but where is the obvious? Here is your original post: <<My system, for some unknown reason, occasionally crashes and shuts down when left unattended. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does PowerMail almost always boots up with something corrupted. <SNIP> But whatever the case is, my system is idle, PowerMail is idle, and only one or two idle applications are open (IE, SpamSeive, Excalibur). So why do I have PowerMail corruption problems so consistently?>> I just realized you didn't say PM periodic mail check is disabled. It was hard to guess what you meant by idle. M$Word periodically caches automatically. Do you still call it idle? :-) >Sounds like none of you (i.e. you, Ben, and kename) are using 10.2.8 so >that is not surprising since so far my problems appear to be related to >10.2.x. That's not what we have been saying. We have been saying we believe removing Norton is the first thing to try. If you don't feel that way, and are not willing to try our suggestion, our hands are up in the air. Lastly, if PM doesn't close some portion of the database, and a crash causes problem because of that, it still is not a bug. It can be bug only to programmer who specked, and for us, end user, it is called "feature request" for "crash proof behavior". -- - Hiro [PROTECTED] <[PROTECTED]> <[PROTECTED]>
