Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:17:31 06/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2003 at 18:07:10, Joachim Rang wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 16:53:47, Alastair Scott wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 15:53:35, Darren Rushton wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2003 at 15:17:18, Alex wrote: >>> >>>>Apparantly the Deep Junior issue is getting ..........ugly........ Alex. >>> >>>Note these points in UK law >>> >>>The main statutes that cover your rights when shopping or buying a service are >>>The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as >>>amended). >>> >>>1.)The law says that goods must be of 'satisfactory quality' - goods must be >>>free from defects except when they have been brought to your attention. >>> >>>2.)They must be 'fit for their purpose' - this includes if the seller assures >>>you they are capable of performing the way you describe you want them to. >>> >>>3.) They must be 'as described' - if you buy a product that has a label stating >>>the product is 100% fat free, then that is what you should get. >> >>These are indeed very powerful ... but I wonder if anyone has bothered to test >>them against software? >> >>On a literal interpretation, everything would fail as there is no such thing as >>perfect software; all software is released with (known and unknown) bugs. >>However, the usual criterion for not fixing known bugs is: >> >>- no effect on user or data; >> >>- fixing would have unpredictable effects on other parts of the software; >> >>- the effort expended on fixing would be better spent elsewhere. >> >>I did have one run-in regarding software, which eventually failed on the absurd >>grounds that a CD-ROM cover was not considered to be advertising (so what is >>it?) >> >>Alastair > > >there were and are "real" printed ads in journals which said the same as the box >of the CD. > >The case is simple and clear. Every customer who bought J8 due to the fact, that >he saw an ad claiming that there will two engines may request fixing or >compensation. Besides this, which I agree with, I feel that as long as Junior 8 is stronger (better reults, somewhat) than its closest rivals which were released before it (like Shredder 7.04), then Junior 8 is well worth its money. It might not be enough, or maybe not enough improvement on other things, but it's intrinsic up-to-date value is there. If there was a particular new innovative feature/quality and it's clear from Ad's that it's not necesarily the strongest in playing, that's also good. S.Taylor
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.