TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-06 > 0991621660


From: Bob Velke <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Re: TMG 32-bit
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:29:36 -0400
References: <200106031659.f53Gxc202859@lists5.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B1A77CA.EFBAB87F@planetkc.com>


John said:

>What's up, Bob?

What's up is that we are working around the clock to get FTST and TMG5 out
the door as quickly as possible.

As Diane has quoted from our web page, the product has gone through
dramatic changes since the beta testers got hold of it. The beta testing
process resulted not just in fixing problems but redesigning whole sections
of the program from scratch in order to overcome memory/system conflicts,
handle much larger data sets, make it much faster, and improve the
interface. I think that all of those changes have produced a much better
product - and I believe that you'll agree - but it has made the process
much longer than expected.

We asked beta testers to spend their precious free time to review and test
the product. They did what we asked them to do. If we dismissed their
advice and released the product over their objections, then I think that we
would be doing them and you a great disservice. To those who think that
our obligation to the calendar (or to meet an estimated release date) is
more important, I can only say that there are many company presidents that
would agree with you ... but I'm not one of them.

>My complaint here is lack of communication.

I don't think that I or my staff have ever declined to respond to an e-mail
on the subject. But I also think that it is unrealistic to expect us to
read every message on this forum and _not_ have it negatively impact the
amount of time that we can work on the product. So we speak when spoken to
and we otherwise keep our noses to the grindstone.

We've periodically updated our web page and our web store, we respond to
e-mails and phone calls, and we've attended a few conferences in order to
demonstrate the product and to talk to users about the progress. For this
we're criticized by some for "wasting time" and not concentrating enough on
development. So on the subject of communication, I can only say that we
can't win for losing <g>.

By the way, I don't intend to get embroiled in another thread about how
"out of date" TMG's technology is. I am the first to admit that TMG's
interface needs an overhaul and we've been working on it for a long
time. When those who know that but still start threads like this one, I
have to wonder to whom they are talking? Most objective observers
recognize TMG as the most powerful and flexible program on the market - but
does anyone disagree that its interface could be a lot better? When such
people suggest (as one here did) that everyone complain by e-mail, what in
the world is he _thinking_?? To expect that to help (instead of just
consume more resources and further delay progress), one would have to
believe that we're sipping daiquiris at the beach all day with no clue
about what to do next.

The claims by some that we "should" have been able to update the interface
by now without compromising our other standards are made by those who have
no concept of what is involved. And the suggestions made here that we
"refuse" or "have no desire" to release an update would be laughable except
that new users read that nonsense and assume that the author actually has a
basis for his opinion.

Upgrading the interface has been and continues to be very important to
us. But if we have "refused" anything, it has been to consider that the
_only_ priority. We made a difficult decision to delay the release in
response to the discontinuation of UFT, for instance, because we believed
that decision was in the best interest of all TMG users (for more on that
see http://genforum.genealogy.com/tmg/messages/1105.html and two other
messages from me in that thread). And we have an ongoing aversion to the
"release anything" mentality that would only satisfy the few users whose
priorities don't extend beyond the interface.

All of this is to say that you should please consider this your update on
our progress <g>. I don't think that anything constructive will be
accomplished by further discussion so I trust that you'll understand why I
don't intend to continue participating in it. It is 10:30pm on Sunday
night and my staff and I are now going back to work.

>I have also been somewhat disappointed with Wholly Genes because of this
>"prepayment"
>for the pre-release version of TMG 5.0. They have made no effort to keep
>those who
>paid, in advance, for what is now clearly vaporware, informed. They are
>working on our
>money that was paid in good faith.

I realize that many people are accustomed to dealing with companies that
will take your advance order, charge your credit card, and deliver months
later. I realize that many people who are accustomed to dealing with
companies that would succumb to the temptation of so many advanced orders
and release a product that is not ready just in order to put your money in
the bank. Apparently, such business practices have gotten so commonplace
that John would even assume that we have done so. But we don't, we
haven't, and we won't.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software

This thread: