Skip to main content

Reply to "This is not a bug, this is made in by Conceptor, story."

Whoa, Feejo - you're making a pretty strong accusation in a very public forum.

As much as I can get frustrated with Max and their support policies, I have to agree with Gord on the example you've given. In this case, they've designed the product such that you can't modify a recurring task. It may be they didn't think ahead to see that modification would be desirable, it may be that they decided that modification would be undesirable and deliberately decided to disallow it, or it may be that the way they create recurrring tasks makes later modification impossible. I actually saw the last example once with recurring General Ledger journal entry creation in an accounting package, and laughed my a## off at how their implementation of recurring tasks was so incredibly simplistic. Rank stupidity in my opinion. But all of these are design decisions, whether you agree with them or not doesn't make them a bug.

Bottom line is a bug occurs where the software doesn't perform as designed. If it does perform as designed it's not a bug. If may be poor design, but it's not a bug.

And for a software developer to ask you to send in your suggestion and say it may be incorporated into the next release, that's normal.

Sorry, Feejo - there are a lot of places where I think Max could be improved. I also wish they'd test their new versions better before they released them. And I wish their support was better, including proper involvement in MaxTalk. But I don't think they deliberately insert buggy code to get people hooked on paying for upgrades. That's just really risky business. Careless they may be, but Machiavellan they're not.

- R.
LEGAL INFO
CONTACT US
Copyright 2007-2018 Advoco Solutions Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
×
×
×
×