Subject: From: Date:

Re: [ECS] [Fwd: ECS] Ingo Pakleppa Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:23:13 -0400

---

Mark,

almost all the points this guy makes are valid. I haven't yet upgraded to the
95 version of ECS (and may never do so, since my 486 has a Monochrome graphics
card), so I did not verify that all of that really happens. My personal
attitude is "why bother if it works" - and I actually prefer DOS - but as you
can see from his reaction, not complying with the rules leaves a bad taste of
"outdated software".

In order to truly be 95-compatible (and qualify for Microsoft's logo), the
following items must definitely be handled. ECS may do some of those already.
If you want to appeal to a mass market, this is definitely a very important
thing; else ECS is always going to remain the niche product for gadget-lovers
(like me!) that it is today.

- long file and directory name support, including names containing blanks.

- standard directory is C:\Program Files\ManufacturerName\Productname (I'm not
sure if C: should always be default even if Windows is installed on D:), e.g.,
C:\Program Files\Netscape\Communicator.

- an install program named SETUP.EXE (not INSTALL or anything else) must be
provided. When you go to the Control Panel and select "Add/Remove Programs,
guess what that software does? It looks on your CD-ROM drive and your floppy
drive for a program named SETUP.EXE.

- Long file names should be supported, as well as file and directory names
containing blanks (but may programs have the same flaw). Microsoft really does
require you to use the name SETUP.EXE for installing, Install.EXE is no longer
acceptable.

- an Uninstall program must be provided.

- .DOC should really be renamed .TXT, and it should definitely use the Windows
character set (one of the big items on my list of annoyances, even for the DOS
version, because I sometimes read the Readme on a Windows box). Better yet,
avoid line-drawing characters altogether.

- a help file in Windows help format must be provided.

- the software MUST also run under NT (Microsoft themselves don't always
comply with that requirement). It seems this guy tried to install it under NT
rather than 95.

- use the registry rather than .INI files.

Another thing: if you do plan on bringing ECS into compliance with all these
things, it's probably going to be a lot of work. Would you consider instead
porting it to Java? Even if it had limited features or required certain native
drivers, I'd love to have a Java version that supported at least the
serial-port based devices because my work recently required me to install a
Linux server that is running 24x7 anyway. Would be fantastic if it could also
run ECS on the same machine; for that, I would actually dump my DOS ECS box.
Java is no more complicated to master than C++, and in fact extremely similar.

Ingo

Mark Gilmore wrote:

> I would appreciate any constructive criticism regarding
> the following comments from a frustrated installer.
>
> Please do NOT respond to him, as I did not get his permission.
>
> BTW, The install directions ARE in the README.TXT (I downloaded
> it and checked), and I think he ran SETUP instead of INSTALL.
>
> Should I rename *.DOC to *.TXT to avoid various editors from
> assuming a format other than plain text ?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Mark Gilmore
> Omnipotence
> http://members.a2zsol.com/omnipotence.html
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: ECS
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:06:21 -0400
> From: Harold Harrington <haroldhar@erols.com>
> To: Mark Gilmore <markgilmore@cococo.net>
> References: <35CE1137.7E15B8A6@erols.com> <35CF0DF0.65C6C07E@cococo.net>
>
> The install program appears to fail if there is a long name with spaces
> in the fully qualified file name.  When setup starts it appears to run
> as a 16 bit DOS application.  I do not generally view that as
> acceptable. When I was in setup it failed immediately with the message
> "Invalid startup directory, please check your pif file"; not a real NT
> flavor message.  It showed the file name E:\downlo~1\X10\setup.exe.  It
> was clearly having trouble with the path E:\downloads\X10\setup.exe.  My
> experience with installs like this is that they are also sufficiently
> unsophisticated to avoid damaging the system by replacing newer files
> with old ones.  Now I could make this run by building a new directory
> with a DOS compliant name. But, it will also prevent placing the
> executable where it is supposed to go  x:\Program Files\.
>
> Your read.me file's only information about installing is for a pure DOS
> environment. And it does not actually tell a person how to install, just
> how to unzip.  I suspect most users will simply drag the file to WINZIP
> or something of that ilk to unzip it. While I do not need this
> information, it again says "old, DOS, unsophisticated".  It is also  a
> VERY  ugly text file.  It is full of capital A's with a pair of dots
> over them.  I assume that is from lines or something you used in the
> text.  But you did not bother to look and see what they look like in
> Notepad; probably the single most likely program that the user will use
> to view the file.  You did not understand that in Windows (any version)
> .DOC means Word.
>
> All of these things, rightly or not, say to me this is not an up-to-date
> program regardless of what the vendor's words on the web say.  It says
> to me that here is an old DOS or UNIX or something programmer that
> simply has not kept up to date.  Why should I trust any code this person
> or persons has created.  There are install programs available that
> simply so not have these problems and I expect anything I intend to pay
> money for to be using them. You are selling a not-inexpensive program
> here (full version).  It would be the most expensive piece of software I
> purchased for quite some time and I have some generally high end office
> applications.
>
> When I evaluate a product, I install and evaluate a product.  I do not
> expect to have to change standard conventions (\Program Files\) to
> accommodate them.  I do not go to opinion boards after the product fails
> to perform.  The product has to work the first time "out of the box",
> and it has to work as I expect any current commercial product to work.
> You may have an excellent product when it is finally installed, but the
> whole package has to be at that level. I have scanned your .doc file and
> the program has some very interesting features.   However, I believe
> from a marketing standpoint your product makes a very bad first
> impression for the reasons I have stated.
>
> You may well disagree with all of this since you clearly have not
> believed it necessary to do it differently.  It may be I am alone in
> these views; a distinct possibility.  There may be also be more of us
> who simply don't take the significant amount time to send a detailed
> memo; we just don't use it.  I have looked at a couple of other X10
> programs in the last few days.  One in particular has such wretched
> thinking behind its' user interface that I would not consider using it
> under any circumstances.  It would be so simple for the author to make
> the interface user friendly. It looked like he was just enamored with
> the new tools in his VB (?) tool kit and wanted to use as many of the
> cute things as possible.  His choices are those of someone with no
> understanding of human interface design. He failed in the same manner as
> many web sites in losing sight of the fact that the user is trying to do
> work or get information, not watch detailed pictures of the company
> headquarters or animated whatevers. Even when he sat there and tested it
> you would have thought he would have noticed it was ill-thought. But I
> am not sending them a note.
>
> The HTML thing - when I started sending the email Netscape generated a
> message (which I do not see very often although I use a lot of email)
> that said essentially that the recipient did not accept HTML.  Why this
> was generated I do not know.

---