VZW Marketing Tactics?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
thus being a sunk investment.

The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
"development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.

Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
investment made to make that work.

Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
(can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
them by.

I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
opinions.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"fbionyourtail" <fbionSPAMMYyourtail@yahSPAMREMOVoo.com> wrote in message
news:7p1qf0d0i15vlcdettischg85f8hkno3v2@4ax.com...
> Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
> Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
> included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
> such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
> data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
> patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
> go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
> thus being a sunk investment.
>
> The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
> took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
> "development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
> had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
> upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
> earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.
>
> Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
> is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
> Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
> wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
> would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
> would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
> investment made to make that work.
>
> Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
> (can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
> argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
> them by.
>
> I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
> opinions.
>
>

It's easy to speculate on such things, and quite often the timing of the
release of one product is intentionally done to affect the demand for
another. Stuff like this probably happens all the time. When I was selling
cameras, we were told to push the ones that were moving slower. So if a
customer comes in and asks for the Canon SureShot, we'd dawdle around and
show them the Yashica first. It really is a nice camera, honest. There are
five SureShots left in the stockroom and 30 Yashicas. Do the math. So it's
not a stretch to predict that a corporation with thousands of expensive
units in stock would fine-tune the releases so as not to diminish sales.
Then again, the i600 and the Treo are pretty much aimed at two different
markets. The i600 is aimed at phone customers who want a little PDA in
there, the Treo is aimed at PDA freaks who also want a phone. I think the
difference is pretty large.

The thing I don't get and would like to know more about is the executive
thought process behind hard-coding GetItNow into the top-level function key
of some phones, forcing users into poorly designed menus to get to more
frequently used features such as contacts, silent mode, etc. The thinking
behind this must have been truly craven, definitely not taking the
customer's best interests into account. As if I'm more likely to use the
feature and spend $1.95 for a LOUSY RINGTONE! Yeah, right. Or consider a
more outlandish scenario: accidentally pressing the key and actually
continuing to use the service. Please give me a break. Verizon already has
the best service around, why not top it off with some intelligent interface
design? Go ahead and market the services, most customers will be more likely
to buy something if they feel respected, not like they're being shaken down
for every last penny at the expense of usabilty. Instead of one assignable
shortcut key on the directional pad, make all four assignable! Now that
would be incredible! Forget about the cameras and video games and all that
other doodoo. They've got the signal quality down quite nicely. Make a more
flexible handset and drop the aggressive marketing techniques, and you'll
have customers for life.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:53:00 -0700, "willum" <i'm_not_all@there.com>
wrote:

>
>"fbionyourtail" <fbionSPAMMYyourtail@yahSPAMREMOVoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7p1qf0d0i15vlcdettischg85f8hkno3v2@4ax.com...
>> Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
>> Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
>> included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
>> such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
>> data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
>> patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
>> go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
>> thus being a sunk investment.
>>
>> The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
>> took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
>> "development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
>> had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
>> upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
>> earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.
>>
>> Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
>> is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
>> Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
>> wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
>> would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
>> would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
>> investment made to make that work.
>>
>> Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
>> (can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
>> argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
>> them by.
>>
>> I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
>> opinions.
>>
>>
>
>It's easy to speculate on such things, and quite often the timing of the
>release of one product is intentionally done to affect the demand for
>another. Stuff like this probably happens all the time. When I was selling
>cameras, we were told to push the ones that were moving slower. So if a
>customer comes in and asks for the Canon SureShot, we'd dawdle around and
>show them the Yashica first. It really is a nice camera, honest. There are
>five SureShots left in the stockroom and 30 Yashicas. Do the math. So it's
>not a stretch to predict that a corporation with thousands of expensive
>units in stock would fine-tune the releases so as not to diminish sales.
>Then again, the i600 and the Treo are pretty much aimed at two different
>markets. The i600 is aimed at phone customers who want a little PDA in
>there, the Treo is aimed at PDA freaks who also want a phone. I think the
>difference is pretty large.

Good points but I bought the smartphone so I wouldn't have to deal
with a bulkier Palm phone but still have the essential PDA features
and more. In fact, I've found many corporate friends find both phones
comparable and corporations are more of the targets than the PDA
freaks.

>The thing I don't get and would like to know more about is the executive
>thought process behind hard-coding GetItNow into the top-level function key
>of some phones, forcing users into poorly designed menus to get to more
>frequently used features such as contacts, silent mode, etc. The thinking
>behind this must have been truly craven, definitely not taking the
>customer's best interests into account. As if I'm more likely to use the

There is no question. Nor the stupid issue of Verizon signatures
required for Smartphone and additional costs to developers to purchase
them. Perhaps they thought they had a huge market to reap and sow but
they did little more than cripple it with stumbling blocks to entry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You mean to tell me that VZW lied to you or has misleading marketing
information some where? Now this is funny dude. This company will go to no
end to make a buck and take advantage of it's own customer is EVERY way it
can. No hesitation to over charge you or reply with wrong answers to
important questions concerning your bill. They will have fine-print some
where, yes...not even necessarily on the same page...but it's there. There
are several people in here that read the fine print not to mention ALL the
print on every contract or whatever they sign...I guess you didn't so your
an idiot, right? Well not to me...but according to the idiots that bashed me
weeks ago for not reading fine print will think you are and have no
mercy...sorry.


"fbionyourtail" <fbionSPAMMYyourtail@yahSPAMREMOVoo.com> wrote in message
news:7p1qf0d0i15vlcdettischg85f8hkno3v2@4ax.com...
> Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
> Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
> included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
> such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
> data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
> patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
> go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
> thus being a sunk investment.
>
> The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
> took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
> "development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
> had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
> upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
> earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.
>
> Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
> is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
> Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
> wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
> would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
> would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
> investment made to make that work.
>
> Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
> (can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
> argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
> them by.
>
> I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
> opinions.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

it's all coincidental, don't count on some deep thoughts in marketing...

"fbionyourtail" <fbionSPAMMYyourtail@yahSPAMREMOVoo.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:7p1qf0d0i15vlcdettischg85f8hkno3v2@4ax.com...
> Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
> Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
> included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
> such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
> data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
> patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
> go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
> thus being a sunk investment.
>
> The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
> took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
> "development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
> had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
> upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
> earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.
>
> Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
> is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
> Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
> wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
> would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
> would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
> investment made to make that work.
>
> Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
> (can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
> argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
> them by.
>
> I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
> opinions.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

willum wrote:
>
> The thing I don't get and would like to know more about is the
> executive thought process behind hard-coding GetItNow into the
> top-level function key of some phones, forcing users into poorly
> designed menus to get to more frequently used features such as
> contacts, silent mode, etc. The thinking behind this must have been
> truly craven, definitely not taking the customer's best interests
> into account. As if I'm more likely to use the feature and spend
> $1.95 for a LOUSY RINGTONE! Yeah, right.

Someone else made the comment about deep thoughts in marketing.
Just as likely someone actually believes that GIN will be such an
immediate landslide success that customers will need/want 1 button
access.

> intelligent interface design? Go ahead and market the services, most
> customers will be more likely to buy something if they feel
> respected, not like they're being shaken down for every last penny at
> the expense of usabilty.

It's possible that a very large number (majority) of customers are not
that deep. sigh... take my daughter for example. Willing to cough up
$6.95 or whatever for a set of ringtones. I offered to buy a cable and
suggested she look into bitpim etc. and she might have free access to
innumerable ring tones -- too much trouble... and there wouldn't be
any joy within the next hour...

-Quick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Yeah, so? Loyalty is to stock holders and pocketbooks...I'd run my business
the same way. At the end of the day, I don't care whether every customer on
the planet hated me, as long as I had legally/legitimately earned their
business and my company profitted as much as possible. Dog eat dog world.


"fbionyourtail" <fbionSPAMMYyourtail@yahSPAMREMOVoo.com> wrote in message
news:7p1qf0d0i15vlcdettischg85f8hkno3v2@4ax.com...
> Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
> Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
> included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
> such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
> data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
> patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
> go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
> thus being a sunk investment.
>
> The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
> took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
> "development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
> had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
> upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
> earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.
>
> Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
> is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
> Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
> wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
> would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
> would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
> investment made to make that work.
>
> Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
> (can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
> argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
> them by.
>
> I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
> opinions.
>
>

 

[MJ]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In a repeat business you don't want to alienate the customer. My
contract with Verizon has run out and I'm considering moving elsewhere
the next time I upgrade my phone. If every customer hated you then
you'd be bankrupt soon thereafter due to customers finding alternative
goods.

The i600 fiasco has made me seriously consider switching services upon
next opportunity to do so.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:58:33 -0400, "James Baker"
<cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yeah, so? Loyalty is to stock holders and pocketbooks...I'd run my business
>the same way. At the end of the day, I don't care whether every customer on
>the planet hated me, as long as I had legally/legitimately earned their
>business and my company profitted as much as possible. Dog eat dog world.
>
>
>"fbionyourtail" <fbionSPAMMYyourtail@yahSPAMREMOVoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7p1qf0d0i15vlcdettischg85f8hkno3v2@4ax.com...
>> Many of us suffered from the Samsung i600 being released with
>> Smartphone 2002 software, missing features that were supposed to be
>> included, caller ID not working properly, and other more fatal bugs
>> such as the intialization of the phone without notice and all your
>> data gone, phone being unable to boot, etc. Finally there were some
>> patches that fixed some of this but still, the phone had a good way to
>> go and we went through hell with it -- after having purchased software
>> thus being a sunk investment.
>>
>> The ability to upgrade this phone was advertised from the get go. It
>> took an incredible amount of time to get it there. In fact,
>> "development" seemed to lag forever and many speculated that Samsung
>> had made several releases of information that insinuated that the
>> upgrade of this phone to 2003 was actually available several months
>> earlier but was not being released or delayed to the market.
>>
>> Coincidentally, virtually the same time that Smartphone 2003 upgrade
>> is released for the Samsung i600, VZW marketing announces that the
>> Treo i600 (welcome old technology) is also available. I can only
>> wonder whether VZW decided that, despite all that owners went through,
>> would delay the release of this upgrade so that sales of the i600
>> would not then diminish the demand for the Treo 600, given the
>> investment made to make that work.
>>
>> Then again, given the time it took to get that gadget to the market
>> (can you say old technology with a low resolution screen) one can
>> argue that it's just a characteristic of VZW to let the world pass
>> them by.
>>
>> I think this is a pretty interesting topic and would like to hear your
>> opinions.
>>
>>
>

 

[Tom]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

James Baker wrote:
> Yeah, so? Loyalty is to stock holders and pocketbooks...I'd run my business
> the same way. At the end of the day, I don't care whether every customer on
> the planet hated me, as long as I had legally/legitimately earned their
> business and my company profitted as much as possible. Dog eat dog world.
>
Are you forgetting customer loyalty? Aren't companies built on customer
loyalty?

If you ran a company like Verizon, you would lose my business, as has
Verizon. Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

You're a short term business man. Angry customers don't buy more or
again. Especially not from you.

JS

James Baker wrote:
> Yeah, so? Loyalty is to stock holders and pocketbooks...I'd run my business
> the same way. At the end of the day, I don't care whether every customer on
> the planet hated me, as long as I had legally/legitimately earned their
> business and my company profitted as much as possible. Dog eat dog world.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.verizon James Baker <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I understated the customer loyalty aspect, but not by much. There
> are plenty of people in this country that hate microsoft, but they're the
> only show in town when it comes to a lot of software. I'd say they're doing
> reasonably well for themselves.

This is a rather ignorant statement. Perhaps you should read up on Microsoft's
history.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Moving from developing software in a garage 20+ years ago to a billion
dollar/year company is history enough for me.

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:OfmdndVRcssMRmPd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
> In alt.cellular.verizon James Baker <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps I understated the customer loyalty aspect, but not by much.
There
> > are plenty of people in this country that hate microsoft, but they're
the
> > only show in town when it comes to a lot of software. I'd say they're
doing
> > reasonably well for themselves.
>
> This is a rather ignorant statement. Perhaps you should read up on
Microsoft's
> history.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[MJ]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

When one has a monopoly, they can tell the customer to go to hell.
That's the reason why there are antitrust laws and attempts to deal
with "virtual monopolies."

Other than such a situation, telling the customer to go to hell can
result in serious repercussions.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:41:44 -0400, "James Baker"
<cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Moving from developing software in a garage 20+ years ago to a billion
>dollar/year company is history enough for me.
>
>"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>news:OfmdndVRcssMRmPd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
>> In alt.cellular.verizon James Baker <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Perhaps I understated the customer loyalty aspect, but not by much.
>There
>> > are plenty of people in this country that hate microsoft, but they're
>the
>> > only show in town when it comes to a lot of software. I'd say they're
>doing
>> > reasonably well for themselves.
>>
>> This is a rather ignorant statement. Perhaps you should read up on
>Microsoft's
>> history.
>>
>> --
>> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
>> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
>sjsobol@JustThe.net
>> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
>> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Certainly. I can't think of any company that literally tells their
customers to go to hell, lol. I realize that in cases outside of a
monopoly, there needs to be a level of customer satisfaction. If it cost me
money to exceed a reasonably good customer satisfaction level and I saw no
profit based on doing that, I wouldn't do it.


"MJ" <lawSPAMyer@newsS_PA_Mguy.com> wrote in message
news:j8fvf01pcqvr6c7fhm19tf914nb5k5o47e@4ax.com...
> When one has a monopoly, they can tell the customer to go to hell.
> That's the reason why there are antitrust laws and attempts to deal
> with "virtual monopolies."
>
> Other than such a situation, telling the customer to go to hell can
> result in serious repercussions.
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:41:44 -0400, "James Baker"
> <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Moving from developing software in a garage 20+ years ago to a billion
> >dollar/year company is history enough for me.
> >
> >"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> >news:OfmdndVRcssMRmPd4p2dnA@lmi.net...
> >> In alt.cellular.verizon James Baker <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Perhaps I understated the customer loyalty aspect, but not by much.
> >There
> >> > are plenty of people in this country that hate microsoft, but they're
> >the
> >> > only show in town when it comes to a lot of software. I'd say
they're
> >doing
> >> > reasonably well for themselves.
> >>
> >> This is a rather ignorant statement. Perhaps you should read up on
> >Microsoft's
> >> history.
> >>
> >> --
> >> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> >> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> >sjsobol@JustThe.net
> >> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> >> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three
kids.
> >
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In alt.cellular.verizon James Baker <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Moving from developing software in a garage 20+ years ago to a billion
> dollar/year company is history enough for me.

So you *choose* to remain ignorant...


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:41:44 -0400, "James Baker"
<cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Moving from developing software in a garage 20+ years ago to a billion
>dollar/year company is history enough for me.

If recent reports are to be believed, M$ takes in $1 billion a
*MONTH*.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.smartphone,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:36:55 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
wrote:

>Ever used DOS 1.0? Its like pulling teeth. (I grew up on
>IBM DOS 2.1)

Nah, I liked CPM much better then.