| Date: | Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:37:46 +0100 |
| Reply-To: | John Whittington <John.W@MEDISCIENCE.CO.UK> |
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
| From: | John Whittington <John.W@MEDISCIENCE.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | Re: SAS Documentation |
|
| In-Reply-To: | <200004181747.SAA00725@vicar.netnames.net> |
| Content-Type: | text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
|---|
At 12:50 18/04/00 -0500, Jaclyn Whitehorn wrote (in part):
>This is the way I see it:
>1. SAS written docs are very good.
>2. SAS written docs are fairly expensive.
>3. SAS written docs never came with the software before.
>4. In our university setting, very few departments purchase the SAS
>written docs (see 2).
I can understand that (4) may be a problem, but (3) is not necessarily true
- since, for at least some licences, a full set of relevant written docs
always *have* come with the software. It's certainly true that, as the
owner of a humble single-user licence, I have always received a full set of
relevant written docs with the software, at no charge. Acoordingly, if I
now receive (unless I pay extra) something less in quality/usefulness than
'a full set of written docs', that will represent an inferior situation as
compared with what I have always enjoyed until now.
Universities usually get extremely cheap SAS licensing deals - which might,
understandably, make SI a somewhat less than generous as regards 'free
written documentation'.
Kind Regards
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: John.W@mediscience.co.uk
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK mediscience@compuserve.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
|