Changes in: PC HARDWARE VENDOR REVIEW: SW Technology (a.k.a. SW Trading Company)

Changes in: PC HARDWARE VENDOR REVIEW: SW Technology (a.k.a. SW Trading Company)

Post by Jonathan I. Kame » Wed, 28 Sep 1994 01:39:19



Archive-name: pc-hardware-faq/vendor-reviews/swt-diff
Posting-Frequency: quarterly

This article shows changes from the last posted version of "PC
HARDWARE VENDOR REVIEW: SW Technology (a.k.a. SW Trading Company)".
The current version of that article has the Message ID

Lines that were deleted are prefixed by '-'; lines that were added are
prefixed by '+'.

--- swt-review  1994/07/27 21:08:44     1.9

 Archive-name: pc-hardware-faq/vendor-reviews/swt
 Posting-Frequency: quarterly
-Version: $Id: swt-review,v 1.9 1994/07/27 21:08:44 jik Exp $
+Version: $Id: swt-review,v 1.12 1994/09/26 16:22:19 jik Exp $


 with a fully working machine.

-                             IN CLOSING
+                 RESPONSE FROM SWT TO MY COMPLAINTS
+
+I E-mailed to SWT a preliminary revision of this review on July 17,
+1994 and offered them a chance to respond to the claims made in it.
+They never responded.
+
+Others who were interested in purchasing hardware from SWT and who
+have seen this review asked SWT to respond to the complaints raised in
+it.  One such response from Marvin Wu, which was forwarded to me by
+its recipient, contained what I consider to be lies.  Here's what he
+wrote, with my comments interspersed in it:
+
+>    We have two unsatisfied customers so far, Jonathan Kamens being
+>    one. He had the machine for three months, without paying anything
+>    except part of the shipping.
+
+That's sort of true, with the exceptions that (a) "part of the
+shipping" came to over $100, (b) he mentioned nothing about the
+bounced refund check, (c) he mentioned nothing about the $4
+check-bouncing charge which SWT never paid me back for (they never
+even acknowledged my mail about it), and (d) the system didn't work
+properly, and I spent much time trying to get it to work properly, for
+the entire time I had it.
+
+>    The probelm of the machine was
+>    mostly due to the Seagate scsi driver, as we've sold many
+>    identical systems with other SCSI adaptors doesn't have any
+>    problem at all. This is solved now by the NCR53C810 driver.
+
+I think that's a lie.
+
+Many people are using the Seagate SCSI driver.  I simply don't believe
+that it caused significant problems with my system.  None of the
+problems I experienced seem to me to be directly or indirectly
+attributable to problems with a SCSI driver.
+
+If the problem with my machine was "mostly due to the Seagate scsi
+driver," then why did SWT send me replacements for the CPU cooling fan
+and power supply on my system, and why did most of the problems I was
+experiencing go away after making those replacements?
+
+During the entire time I was working with SWT to get the machine
+working, Mr. Wu never said a word to me about the Seagate SCSI driver
+causing most of my problems.  Once, shortly after the machine arrived,
+he mentioned in passing that the Seagate card might be causing
+problems, but he never mentioned it again, and nothing that happened
+subsequently supported that possibility.  He also didn't mention
+anything about the Seagate driver when I sent him my review of SWT and
+asked him for comments before posting it.
+
+Why did he never say anything about the Seagate SCSI card being a
+problem before I returned the machine?  And if they discovered *after*
+I returned the machine that it's what was causing the problem, why
+didn't they tell me so and offer to send back the machine with another
+controller?
+
+Incidentally, I didn't ask for the Seagate SCSI controller; they
+offered it to me; that particular controller was their choice, not
+mine.  Presumably, if they were going to pick a controller to sell me
+without any preference on my part, they would have picked one that
+they sell regularly.  And if that's the case, then how come none of
+their other systems with that controller had any trouble?
+
+
+            BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU COMPLAINT AGAINST SWT
+
+On July 25, 1994, I filed a complaint about SWT with the Better
+Business Bureau for the greater Dallas area, asking for reimbur*t
+for all my shipping costs, reimbur*t for my bank's bad-check
+charge, and an admission of fault from SWT.
+
+The BBB forwarded my complaint to SWT on July 29, 1994 and asked for a
+response.  As of August 22, they had received no response, so they
+sent a followup letter with another copy of the complaint.  They again
+received no response, so on September 8, they closed the complaint
+without resolution.
+
+As of September 26, their automated complaint information system had
+no information about the company.  I spoke to a representative and
+asked why, and she said that they don't actually tell anyone that
+there are complaints against a company until "enough" people complain.
+I asked what "enough" means, and she said that it varies.
+
+Therefore, if you've had trouble with SWT, and they did not resolve
+your complaint to your satisfaction, I encourage you to file a
+complaint with the Better Business Bureau.  You can get a complaint
+form by calling 214-220-2000 or by writing to Better Business Bureau
+of Metropolitan Dallas, Inc., 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 850, Dallas, TX
+75201.

-I have E-mailed to SWT a preliminary revision of this review and
-offered them a chance to respond to the claims made in it.  I will
-include any response from them in a later revision.  Although it has
-been more than a week since I sent them the review, I have received no
-acknowledgement or comments.
+
+                             IN CLOSING

 I intend to post this review regularly in relevant newsgroups until
 someone gives me reason to believe that SWT has either improved
-considerably or gone out of business.  Furthermore, I have filed a
-complaint about SWT with the Better Business Bureau for the greater
-Dallas area, asking for reimbur*t for all my shipping costs,
-reimbur*t for my bank's bad-check charge, and an admission of
-fault from SWT.  The BBB claims that they will respond within five
-weeks, so I expect to hear from them by August 29.
+considerably or gone out of business.

 I have retained all E-mail correspondence between SWT and me.  If
 you'd like to know more about my encounter with them, I'd be glad to