RE: Electrix/IVL petition

["M. Steven Ginn" <sginn@airmail.net>]

My question would be whether or not these particular issues/bugs could
be considered warranty issues that should be repaired?  Since Lisa said
that they will continue to honor warranty related fixes, if these things
don't work (and I am not talking about features that may have been
promised but not delivered) then they should be fixed.

M. Steven Ginn

********************************
Please go to
<www.SeptemberRising.org>
Listen to the music.
Purchase the CD
Support the NY Firefighters
9/11 Relief Fund
********************************



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Sottilaro [mailto:sine@zerocrossing.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:30 PM
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Re: Electrix/IVL petition
> 
> 
> Well, what I conceder a tenth place up-grade is a bug fix.  
> Maybe add a 
> few features at .5, if they're *ready*.  I'm actually (as I've said) 
> mostly happy about the Repeater and how it works.  The problem is, it 
> doesn't work as it's spec'd to.  (I'll mostly harp on the MIDI clock 
> out) This is why I'm pretty comfortable in being angry at 
> Electrix for 
> selling me something that didn't totally work as described, with the 
> promise that it would be fixed in the future.  Perhaps a 
> petition isn't 
> in order, but a class action suit.  Sue IVL for not providing a 100% 
> working version of the Repeater.  Sue for punitive damages.  
> Can I sue 
> you?  For punitive damages?
> 
> Sorry, slipped into a Jerky Boys phone call.
> 
> I really think things are far past the point where asking 
> really nicely 
> would get us anywhere.
> 
> Soooooo, to answer your question, I couldn't imagine a 1.2 OS to be 
> worse than the 1.1 (though it's a possibility, I agree) but 
> if they had 
> a beta of a 2.0 that had more features, but was unreliable, I 
> would not 
> use it.  At this point, I probably would pay a bit for the 
> bug fix, but 
> I don't think I should have to.  I would probably pay a few 
> hundred for 
> an upgrade that had a few of my big "wish list" items on it that was 
> stable.
> 
> Mark Sottilaro
> 
> On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 02:49  PM, Andre LaFosse wrote:
> 
> > Yo Mark,
> >
> >> I'm sure they must have done some
> >> work on an update (v. 1.2?) and won't even sell/finish that.
> >
> > Question for you: If there were (hypothetically speaking) 
> some sort of 
> > pre-beta version of 1.2 floating around somewhere, which was very 
> > buggy and essentially unusable in any remotely consistent manner, 
> > would you really be eager to pay money for it and stick it 
> into your 
> > Repeater?
>