WIN98 SE Shutting down for no reason

You are amazing... I'm 55 so how old are you bud...

Most of what you have presented is pure bunk,,,

Connectors are NOT self cleaning, and as I have had lengthy experience both
as a auto mechanic AND as a computer tech and IT, and several other areas,
your purported experience doesn't impress me, nor does it reflect the world
where WE live, maybe it does in that dreamworld of yours.. here's a fact to
ponder, network/Internet servers are placed into CONTROLLED environments
BECAUSE of the effects of dust, heat, and environmental pollutants... guess
that's all unnecessary where you live...

MOST/many connectors are tin plated AND affected by the environment.... why
don't you spend sometime actually looking at the information and actual
*physical examples*.... books are great except for one thing, they rely upon
what that party thought or design PLANS and perhaps test runs not
production... good examples are books on Microsoft products, when they get
into the actual coding and EXACTLY what occurs, they generally fail...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:37 am, "MEB" meb@not wrote:
MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
experience...
the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT
to
corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold
plated
or have degraded.

Contacts were self cleaning when I was doing this stuff and you
probably did not exist. Self cleaning by 'breaking and making' a
connections was required for any minimally sufficient electronic
connector - even generations ago.

Nobody was even discussing gold plated connectors - except MEB.
Apparently he believes what is standard for all connectors instead
only apply to gold plated contacts. Last time I worked with gold
plated computer connectors - the IBM PC did not exist. But then one
here comes with significant knowledge and experience to know 'erasing'
contacts is based in junk science reasoning.

Any tech that was caught cleaning contacts with an eraser was
quickly reeducated or transferred. Still some do this eraser stuff
rather than first learn what connectors are routinely required to do.
Using an eraser to fix a failure by 'cleaning contacts' is a benchmark
for the poorly trained tech.

Read connector application notes such as from Amp. Or is that
information so old and so well known that manufacturer application
notes are no longer available? Well, at least one here learned from
those manufacturer app notes so long ago that the app notes may have
since been discontinued - because everyone knew that stuff.

Any environment that a PC operates in must not degrade any
connector. If a human can survive in it, then a computer must not be
harmed by it. Computers must experience very harsh environments and
operate in difficult environments - and still operate just fine. That
means electronics work even when contacts become normally corroded.
'Breaking, then making' a connection even cleans worse corrosion. Old
and well proven technology.

Why would someone fix a computer by cleaning connectors with an
eraser? Insufficient technical knowledge.

Electronics are designed so that connector corrosion does not cause
failures. Furthermore connectors are self cleaning - a fact well
known more than 40 years ago.

In a parallel example, GM cars would often suffer computer failures.
Its computer was replaced with a rebuilt one for maybe $400. But when
that computer arrived back at the factory, that computer worked just
fine. Why? GM saved money on inferior connectors. When a new
computer was installed, even cheapest GM connectors cleaned themselves
- eliminated computer sensor problems. Even deficient connectors in
1980s GM cars were self cleaning. Even defectively designed (cheapest
possible) connectors would be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making'
the connection. An old and well known fact. A fact unknown to
computer techs 20 years later? Cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix a computer: an urban myth that is still alive and well.

You are amazing... I'm 55 so how old are you bud...

Most of what you have presented is pure bunk,,,

Connectors are NOT self cleaning, and as I have had lengthy experience both
as a auto mechanic AND as a computer tech and IT, and several other areas,
your purported experience doesn't impress me, nor does it reflect the world
where WE live, maybe it does in that dreamworld of yours.. here's a fact to
ponder, network/Internet servers are placed into CONTROLLED environments
BECAUSE of the effects of dust, heat, and environmental pollutants... guess
that's all unnecessary where you live...

MOST/many connectors are tin plated AND affected by the environment.... why
don't you spend sometime actually looking at the information and actual
*physical examples*.... books are great except for one thing, they rely upon
what that party thought or design PLANS and perhaps test runs not
production... good examples are books on Microsoft products, when they get
into the actual coding and EXACTLY what occurs, they generally fail...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel

Windows diagnostics/Security/Networking:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
_ _
~~
wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:37 am, "MEB" meb@not wrote:
MEB - NO your response indicates you have very little REAL WORLD
experience...
the contacts are NOT self cleaning, gold *plated* contacts are RESISTANT
to
corrosion NOT corrosion proof, moreover, the contacts may not be gold
plated
or have degraded.

Contacts were self cleaning when I was doing this stuff and you
probably did not exist. Self cleaning by 'breaking and making' a
connections was required for any minimally sufficient electronic
connector - even generations ago.

Nobody was even discussing gold plated connectors - except MEB.
Apparently he believes what is standard for all connectors instead
only apply to gold plated contacts. Last time I worked with gold
plated computer connectors - the IBM PC did not exist. But then one
here comes with significant knowledge and experience to know 'erasing'
contacts is based in junk science reasoning.

Any tech that was caught cleaning contacts with an eraser was
quickly reeducated or transferred. Still some do this eraser stuff
rather than first learn what connectors are routinely required to do.
Using an eraser to fix a failure by 'cleaning contacts' is a benchmark
for the poorly trained tech.

Read connector application notes such as from Amp. Or is that
information so old and so well known that manufacturer application
notes are no longer available? Well, at least one here learned from
those manufacturer app notes so long ago that the app notes may have
since been discontinued - because everyone knew that stuff.

Any environment that a PC operates in must not degrade any
connector. If a human can survive in it, then a computer must not be
harmed by it. Computers must experience very harsh environments and
operate in difficult environments - and still operate just fine. That
means electronics work even when contacts become normally corroded.
'Breaking, then making' a connection even cleans worse corrosion. Old
and well proven technology.

Why would someone fix a computer by cleaning connectors with an
eraser? Insufficient technical knowledge.

Electronics are designed so that connector corrosion does not cause
failures. Furthermore connectors are self cleaning - a fact well
known more than 40 years ago.

In a parallel example, GM cars would often suffer computer failures.
Its computer was replaced with a rebuilt one for maybe $400. But when
that computer arrived back at the factory, that computer worked just
fine. Why? GM saved money on inferior connectors. When a new
computer was installed, even cheapest GM connectors cleaned themselves
- eliminated computer sensor problems. Even deficient connectors in
1980s GM cars were self cleaning. Even defectively designed (cheapest
possible) connectors would be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making'
the connection. An old and well known fact. A fact unknown to
computer techs 20 years later? Cleaning contacts with an eraser to
fix a computer: an urban myth that is still alive and well.

wrote in message
...

Even defectively designed (cheapest possible) connectors would
be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making' the connection.

Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Engineers can tell you how things are designed to work, and in some
cases can tell you how failures should manifest themselves. But unless
they spend time as a repair technician they haven't got a clue as to how
the real repair world operates. So called "shotgunning" is an easy way
out in some cases, and in other cases it is just expedient.

Mostly, the idea is to 'get it working' not to actually repair it. What I
mean by that is the repair tech may have to replace a failed part but
without analysing what design specification allowed the failure. I may
replace a power transistor to 'get it working' without any need to make
changes to the size of the heatsink surface or the airflow. An engineer
would probably not consider the transistor to be a failed part, rather
a faulty design that allowed the part to be used outside of its specs.

After the repair tech is done, the "problem" is still not repaired - but
at least he's 'got it working'.

wrote in message
...

Even defectively designed (cheapest possible) connectors would
be cleaned by simply 'breaking and making' the connection.

Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Engineers can tell you how things are designed to work, and in some
cases can tell you how failures should manifest themselves. But unless
they spend time as a repair technician they haven't got a clue as to how
the real repair world operates. So called "shotgunning" is an easy way
out in some cases, and in other cases it is just expedient.

Mostly, the idea is to 'get it working' not to actually repair it. What I
mean by that is the repair tech may have to replace a failed part but
without analysing what design specification allowed the failure. I may
replace a power transistor to 'get it working' without any need to make
changes to the size of the heatsink surface or the airflow. An engineer
would probably not consider the transistor to be a failed part, rather
a faulty design that allowed the part to be used outside of its specs.

After the repair tech is done, the "problem" is still not repaired - but
at least he's 'got it working'.

On Dec 19, 5:06*pm, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:
Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

On Dec 19, 5:06*pm, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:
Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
"engineer" comments.

I (as a repair tech) discovered an odd defect in the hold down (clamp)
mechanism for an old optical CD player. In addition to occasionally
"quitting" for no apparent reason - I noticed the total time display after
initializing was sometimes way off (doubled I believe - but never did
the math).

I applied a stethoscope method (actually an AudioTechnica phono
pickup taped to the drive's chassis) and displayed that on channel
A of my dual-trace o'scope. Channel B had the tracking error TE
test point signal.

Hours of Kenny Rogers, Tina Turner, and Herb Alpert later I got
my symptoms to manifest while test equipment was looking.

It turned out that replacing a 'thrust pad' I think they called it would
repair the unit. The pad pressed down on a ball seated on the top of
the top "clamp" and after years of use the pad developed an indent
and allowed the ball to wobble within the cup of the indent. This was
the cause of the "quitting" (which showed up as a howling audio sig
on channel A and a wildly erratic TE on B) and a replacement part
effected the "repair".

The manufacturer thanked me for my submitted paperwork detailing
the "repair" and informed me that new repair parts will now be made
with different 'stiffer' material. Now, *that* is an engineer's repair. My
repair didn't get rid of the *real* problem it only masked the symptom
of harmonic resonance between the spindle speed and the ball and 'cup'
precession.

My repair, using the old part, would probably outlast the laser and so
is an effective repair. Next service call on that machine would include
the "field change" to the new part. This also demonstrates the value of
feedback from actual field repair technicians to the engineers so that
the technology can improve.


wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:
Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
"engineer" comments.

I (as a repair tech) discovered an odd defect in the hold down (clamp)
mechanism for an old optical CD player. In addition to occasionally
"quitting" for no apparent reason - I noticed the total time display after
initializing was sometimes way off (doubled I believe - but never did
the math).

I applied a stethoscope method (actually an AudioTechnica phono
pickup taped to the drive's chassis) and displayed that on channel
A of my dual-trace o'scope. Channel B had the tracking error TE
test point signal.

Hours of Kenny Rogers, Tina Turner, and Herb Alpert later I got
my symptoms to manifest while test equipment was looking.

It turned out that replacing a 'thrust pad' I think they called it would
repair the unit. The pad pressed down on a ball seated on the top of
the top "clamp" and after years of use the pad developed an indent
and allowed the ball to wobble within the cup of the indent. This was
the cause of the "quitting" (which showed up as a howling audio sig
on channel A and a wildly erratic TE on B) and a replacement part
effected the "repair".

The manufacturer thanked me for my submitted paperwork detailing
the "repair" and informed me that new repair parts will now be made
with different 'stiffer' material. Now, *that* is an engineer's repair. My
repair didn't get rid of the *real* problem it only masked the symptom
of harmonic resonance between the spindle speed and the ball and 'cup'
precession.

My repair, using the old part, would probably outlast the laser and so
is an effective repair. Next service call on that machine would include
the "field change" to the new part. This also demonstrates the value of
feedback from actual field repair technicians to the engineers so that
the technology can improve.


wrote in message
...
On Dec 19, 5:06 pm, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:
Which is exactly why reseating connectors is a good troubleshooting
procedure. I was always told not to use an eraser or steel wool to
clean contacts (it only wears them out more than need be. A cotton
swab with the proper solvent will remove crud).

Cleaning contacts means diagnostic information provided by a
normally corroded contact is lost. Curing symptoms only makes a defect
harder to locate. If contacts create a failure, then corrosion helps
find the real defect.

Notice what was posted previously and again. First collect facts
before reseating, etc. Reseating does not fix it. Reseating is
simply another symptom to track down a real defect. Unfortunately
some techs remain so naive as to even use an eraser or, as you said,
wear down the contacts in some naive belief that dirty means failure.

Connector technology is well proven and well understood from
manufacturer app notes. Educating technicians is part of the job.
Smarter technicians catch on quick. Connectors are self cleaning. If
cleaning with solvent stops a failure, the defect still exists.

Cited was an example that any tech with experience long ago
understood. GM had computer failures due to cheap connectors.
Replacing computers would (temporarily) fix the failure - clean the
contacts. Even inferior connectors are self cleaning.

A connector inside a computer, fixed by cleaning, means a problem
exists elsewhere. Technicians cleaning contacts with an eraser (or
even worse, steel wool - which quickly got one tech removed) need
reeducation or a new assignment. We could never put up with 'eraser
repairs' because anything that went out the door had to always work.

More amazing is a fifty some year old tech whose only technical
proof is a hysterical declaration - a denial and nothing more. Who
still did not learn basic connector concepts. Who would post replies
that are attacks rather than explain the science. He still has not
explained by why routine design permits corrosion problems without
failure. Proper design makes connector corrosion irrelevant.

Any design must work fine with normal contact corrosion. And then
that corrosion is eliminated by reseating.

Let's see. How many ohms resistance is created by corrosion? How
many volts exist across that corroded contact? Why did others not
provide numbers? Those who are curing problems with an eraser just
know. Junk science requires one to know without any numbers. It
looks dirty. Therefore cleaning with an eraser must fix it. Classic
junk science reasoning. Where does he provide any numbers to prove
his point? Oh. He just knows that contacts need routine cleaning
with an eraser.

Yes, making a change to modify symptoms of a failure will help
isolate the actual defect. However, once that change is made, other
important facts are lost. A naive tech will fix it by cleaning
contact with an eraser rather than first locate the defect. If it
works, then an eraser fixed it? Nonsense. That is a first thing
that a first year tech learns to not do - waste time cleaning
contacts.

If reseating does not clean contacts, then we have a serious design
defect AND eliminate that connector on everything. Every minimally
acceptable connector is self cleaning. Amazing that a tech that old
still did not learn these basic concepts. Junk science is alive and
well.

On Dec 20, 11:27*am, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:
Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
"engineer" comments.
...
This also demonstrates the value of feedback from actual field
repair technicians to the engineers so that the technology can
improve.

Your example is not about ‘tech versus engineer’. Your example is
about communication and the many who know without first learning. For
example, why does SouthWest Air do so well? The president even
periodically works as a steward on his airliners. Why did Wal-Mart
foresee an impending Christmas disaster last year? A Wal-Mart
executive working as a bagger in a store in late November suspected a
problem, confirmed it with the numbers, and averted a Christmas
disaster. Lieutenants who 'lived' in Nam would routinely first
consult with their Sergeants.

Meanwhile, an informed tech or engineer learns from manufacturer
datasheets and application notes. Well documented is how a connector
will change with corrosion - so that a design can compensate for
normal degradation. Well documented were app notes discussing self
cleaning connectors.

One problem often found with many corporations - they cannot be
bothered with feedback from the field as in your example. It's a
shame, often traceable to a technically naive staff, and a reason for
bankruptcy.

On Dec 20, 11:27*am, "FromTheRafters"
wrote:
Here is another example of what I meant regarding my "tech" versus
"engineer" comments.
...
This also demonstrates the value of feedback from actual field
repair technicians to the engineers so that the technology can
improve.

Your example is not about ‘tech versus engineer’. Your example is
about communication and the many who know without first learning. For
example, why does SouthWest Air do so well? The president even
periodically works as a steward on his airliners. Why did Wal-Mart
foresee an impending Christmas disaster last year? A Wal-Mart
executive working as a bagger in a store in late November suspected a
problem, confirmed it with the numbers, and averted a Christmas
disaster. Lieutenants who 'lived' in Nam would routinely first
consult with their Sergeants.

Meanwhile, an informed tech or engineer learns from manufacturer
datasheets and application notes. Well documented is how a connector
will change with corrosion - so that a design can compensate for
normal degradation. Well documented were app notes discussing self
cleaning connectors.

One problem often found with many corporations - they cannot be
bothered with feedback from the field as in your example. It's a
shame, often traceable to a technically naive staff, and a reason for
bankruptcy.