Re: Spectors put-down of SQC (was: Apple Drops Backward Compatibility for Next MacOS

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article "Charles T. Turley" <cturley@wco.com> writes...

>Mitch,
>Welcome to the legion of Apple II Vogens! Sounds to me like you are 
>(from your own personal conclusions and relationship with them -SQC-) 

    If by relationship with SQC, your referring to the article I had
published in II-Alive, that is a completely separate issue. My view 
of Quality Computers is not tainted by it, I was disappointed with
the magazine's editor, _not_ it's parent company. This is as silly 
as claiming I hold a grudge and great distrust of IDG Communications --
and everything they're currently involved with -- all due to the fact 
that InCider/A+ often published misinformation.

    The fact of the matter is, had my article been "edited" in the
same manner in Shareware Solutions II, Apple Blossom, GS.Juiced or
any other publication, I would have been just as upset. Incidentally,
after posting my feelings on that, I learned others shared similar
experiences and were just as disappointed. The point being is, I do
not go about randomly complaining about things out of spite.

>writing Scranton Quality Computer (SQC) off of the Apple II vendors of 
>software in general. 

    Where did I write off Scantron Quality Computers? I said I felt
their level of support has dropped for the Apple II over the past
two years. I did _not_ write they are some horrible company which
should be avoided at all costs, now did I? 

>IMHO, that's a rather foolish thing to do and/or post.

    Since when is sharing an opinion (or rather an observation),
and written in good taste, a foolish act?  No, I think blindly 
praising someone or something, regardless of their actions and 
ignoring all facts...that is being foolish.

>So, SQC wasn't able to pull off an update and/or bug fix for Platinum 
>Paint or AppleWorks GS, etc.  Big deal, neither was anybody else - for 
>that matter, including Burger Bill!

    Oh? Well why did Burger Bill just post he _was_ able to perform an 
AWGS 1.1->2.0 update, but Quality Computers refused to pay him and so 
he stopped? If you took the time to read the lines I quoted above my
original post, you'd have seen that.

>SQC has a vast amount of both current and past Apple II and IIGS related 
>software and hardware they offer for sale to the public, as an Apple II 
>listed vendor no less. They have a very current Apple II only specific 
>catalog offered - with tons of commercial software and hardware for the 
>Apple II and IIGS.

    Yes, they sell Apple II products and software. I don't dispute
this fact and this service is helpful to Apple II users. However,
they have grown from _more_ than just a vendor that resells items.
They write their own software products, they publish magazines,
do videos and even manufacture some hardware products. The company
claims it supports Apple II, Macintosh and IBM PC, and one would 
assume with all these resources.

    Now tell me, Tom, what new things have they done for the Apple II 
over the past two years? (Besides acting as an Apple II vendor and 
updates to AppleWorks Classic). Prove my statement wrong about the
lack of support over the past 2 years. List me the new software titles
they've written, or updates to existing software. What new hardware
products have they introduced?  Why are they discontinuing their
Apple II publication if there's still interest and it's profitable? 
It's possible I may have overlooked something, and if so, then please 
give me some examples...

>Again (IMHO) you seem to be simply expressing your spoiled, demanding 
>and jaded attitude towards a company (SQC) that doesn't meet up to your 
>personal needs, dictates and expectations. SQC continues to show as much 
>support for the Apple II and IIGS computer users and community - with 
>offers of software and hardware sales to the public, as any other Apple 
>II and/or Apple IIGS vendor does!

    Hmmm, you seem to enjoy using a number of interesting adjectives to 
describe me. As I wrote you in mail, your certainly more than entitled 
to express your opinions and criticisms on anything I, or anyone else,
writes. However, more often than not, you seem to cross the line between 
expressing an opinion and throwing insults. I also don't see why you
felt the need to change the subject line to include my surname. Are you
trying to start a negative thread against me?

>It's posts like yours - that turns the public off to what is still 
>available for the Apple II and IIGS from such vendors as SQC. That 
>really puzzles me, as you profess to be an active supporter of this 
>computer platform and the Apple II community in general - yet constantly 
>rag and rant over past issues from SQC that everybody should understand 
>they could not do anything about, with the past shortcomings and all 
>limitations they had to deal and work with, on such issues as an update 
>and/or bug fixes to AppleWorks GS and Platinum Paint. 

    Posts like mine that turn the public off?? Over the past few days,
it's you I've seen rant and flame (see the "NoiseTracker" thread) and
make comp.sys.apple2 a less welcoming place. I've spoken with people
who are actually fearful of posting questions (ie, school teachers) 
because of the unfriendly atmosphere. If your so concerned about posts
that have a detrimental affect on this newsgroup, I suggest you start
with your own.

    Speaking of updates, why do you say they could not have done anything
as far as bug-fixes to Platinum Platinum? The problems have been known 
for sometime and have even been documented. Refusing to do something as
minor as big-fixes, in my eyes, is rather odd (this was in 1994, too).

>Think about the content of your post and the potential dammage it might 
>have caused to SQC, with what it does have to offer to the Apple II 
>users, as well as the impressions new csa2 newsgroup readers, that 
>reviewed your post content and comments  - this reply addresses!

    As I said, expressing an opinion or observation cannot be harmful,
that is what newsgroups are generally for. At least, so long as it's
done tastefully, tactfully and with no bias (key words there). You know, 
each time I express an opinion you jump at me, often without even giving 
reason (just the usual bit about how awful and damaging I've been to the
Apple II community for speaking out).

    If you want to talk about damaging SQC, what about your little
episode with OmiPaint? Which is more damaging, my opinion or your
past actions? 

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca