Art wrote:
> "Please go away and leave us alone... we didn't create this
> problem and its Japan's fault. If they gave a rats ass,
> they would have fixed it long ago, since they've known
> about the problem for a long time".
I'm not convinced that the message has really got through to the programmers
who are actually writing the code. I *am* convinced that people in Nikon
know about the problem *and* the solution, since they've loaned Ed Hamrick
Nikon scanners, and Ed has told them the solution.
I'd have thought that the programmers would have attempted to address the
problem in Nikonscan 3.0 if they'd actually been told about it.
> I know this is an accurate translation because it is exactly
> the line Epson and Honda and Roland gave me, and I've been
> waiting for a "reply" for over 20 years on a couple of them.
I'm disappointed you got a poor response from Roland. I know
that the service department here in Australia was very
proactive in resolving issues. They debugged a number of things
which Japan hadn't fixed. But that was a long time ago when I
worked with them.
> If you really want some action on this, I suggest you
> contact a lawyer or at least your consumer affairs
> department. Now that might get Nikon's attention... in Japan!
In fairness to the local distributors I would need to raise
it with them before taking it to Consumer Affairs. I also
seriously doubt that Consumer Affairs in Australia would want
to pursue something that affects so few people and would
require getting a response from Japan.
The response from Maxwell Optics would probably be to send
the unit back for "repair", even though I know that there
is *nothing* they could do physically to fix the problem.
What is required is a software fix to a hardware design
fault. Ed's done it, Nikon should be able to.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
