hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dwayne Hutson) (08/28/90)
In article <274@cbmtor.UUCP> you write: >In article <13240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> you write: >>I have to wonder where my money went to when I purchased the Lattice >>product........ (deleted since I know what I said.) > >This is a major release (I talked directly to SAS), not only have they >made many changes to the compiler/utilities, but they have also changed >companies, will be sending you 6 disks (NOT PATCHES), and new pages for >your manual. If you want you can argue that SAS should have called this >6.0, but the number is just a technicallity. > I just recieved my letter from SAS yestaurday and read all the info, yes, there are many new improvements, and I, in fact ordered the 5.10 version today. As long as this isn't a one disk addendum I am happy. Which, after peaking with them today, I found it is not. >The last version of Lattice was 5.04, not 5.4, the new version is 5.1 > Sorry, I made a typo, I knew it was 5.04, but thanks for the clearification. >>Now I am wondering if I should have said anything at all. >>Is there no longer real customer support anymore. I mean it really isn't >>support if you have to pay a good percentage of the cost of the original >>itself. > >My father, a graphic designer who uses Mac products, was just asked to pay >over $300 for an upgrade to QuarkXPress (a DTP package), and there new code >PREVENTS more than one version of the code running on an AppleTalk network. >They now FORCE you to buy several copies if you have several machines. No >site licensing even. Stop complaining Lattice...now SAS has done a good >job for the Ami. >> The point was not that I spent $200 on Lattice and I got a bad deal, the point is that they said they would honor an agreement and it was sort of, well lost in the shuffle. Besides SAS was according to the letter the original writer of Lattice C, so they did play a role before. I really don't think my posting had anything to do with a purchase your father made of a $300 program. But, thanks again, for the info. Point in note, I found out what is offered in the new SAS/C compiler package, and I should have found all the facts out before hand. But if it is such a major release, yes the version number should have been the same, if only to maintain the same order Lattice started earlier. Thanks, to everyone for all the input. And , YES, I was told this to me by a Lattice sales person. When I purchased this, there was the 5.02 version, which was the one I purchased out on the shelves. They told me, that any further releases that were not a new whole step up would be shiped without charge. Yes, they could have changed this new release to 6.0, that is what I said, it would be more in line with what Lattice set its numbering system to be in the first place. But, 5.02 was the one I purchased and it was not 5.0. This last bit is in response to a previous posting by another party. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Dwayne (Tony) Hutson +++ Phoenix Commodore Computer Group + + Vice President of PCCG +++ Indianapolis, IN + + +++ + + +++ hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sorber@motcid.UUCP (Russell C. Sorber) (08/29/90)
hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dwayne Hutson) writes: > The point was not that I spent $200 on Lattice and I got a bad deal, the >point is that they said they would honor an agreement and it was sort of, well >lost in the shuffle. It seems that Lattice and SAS provided you with a near state of the art product at a reasonable price, which seems to me to be nothing to complain about. The 1 900 number on the other hand ... >Besides SAS was according to the letter the original >writer of Lattice C, so they did play a role before. SAS did play a role before, but this statement is not really true. Lattice was the original writer of the compiler for the Amiga In fact, Lattice was involved in the development of SAS C for the mainframe, not the other way around. Engineers at SAS and the Software Distillery were involved in the the Amiga C project since the appearance of BLINK, however and probably should have followed the already established numbering scheme. >I really don't think >my posting had anything to do with a purchase your father made of a $300 >program. But, thanks again, for the info. It has a lot to do with it! Lattice was not making a go of it financially, and this is directly related to how much money they receive from you and me, the customer. Most software, expecially on other platforms costs a lot more money and most upgrades are more expensive, if they are offered at all! It is the same work to develop a product for the Amiga as it is for another platform. A C compiler is about two man years of work in development, plus development for a state of the art debugger, plus manual, diskette and advertising costs, plus supporting the product after the (usually) one time only sale. Many users (especially, I'm sad to say, Amiga users) expect the software free of charge, or for not much more than the price of a diskette. Perhaps the marketing person that you talked to would still be employed at Lattice if the Amiga market had allowed them to charge more money for the product to begin with! If you want a state of the art product you should be willing to pay for it. ---------------------------------- Russ Sorber (former Lattice Employee) now a software contrator at Motorola, Inc. Opinions are my own.
jmeissen@ogicse.ogi.edu (John Meissen) (08/29/90)
In article <13385@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dwayne Hutson) writes: >.................... Besides SAS was according to the letter the original >writer of Lattice C, so they did play a role before. Now I really can't wait to see the letter! The original author of Lattice C was Francis Lynch, one of the 3 founders of Lattice, Inc. The compiler was ported to many platforms at Lattice, including the Amiga (by myself, oh so many years ago). The SAS Institute licensed the source to the C compiler and ported it to the 370. John Toebes, who is now in charge of the Amiga (and all 68000 versions) did the code generator for that implementation. They may also have done an Apollo port. Some time after the initial Amiga port, SAS acquired Lattice. Up until that time their relationship with Lattice was strictly as a licensee. There is no doubt that SAS has applied considerable technical effort to the Amiga C compiler, and they have made significant improvements. The current code probably looks considerably different from the original source. However, they certainly weren't the original writers of the compiler. -- John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | "That's the remarkable thing about life; ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | things are never so bad that they can't jmeissen (BIX) | get worse." - Calvin & Hobbes
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (08/29/90)
In article <13385@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hutsonda@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dwayne Hutson) writes: > . . . . Yes, they could have > changed this new release to 6.0, that is what I said, it would be more in > line with what Lattice set its numbering system to be in the first place. > The step up from 5.05 to 5.1 IS consistent with the numbering system that Lattice used. One of the early major releases was v3.03 (which I started with) and then the next major release was v3.10. If I recall correctly this upgrade was handled similar to the current one. The later steps to v4.0 and then v5.0 were not only major releases but essentially new products. The v4.0 was an apparent complete rewrite (by SAS instead of Lattice) and v5.0 made it a complete programming environment, with the inclusion of the previously seperate Lattice Companion (LSE editor plus many other utilities) and the CodeProbe debugger. The bottom line is, if you don't want to buy the new upgrade, don't buy it. This is America, etc. ---Mike, -- A man said to the Universe "Sir, I exist!" | Michael Figg DSAC-FSD "However," replied the Universe, | DLA Systems Automation Center "The fact has not created in me a | Columbus, Ohio sense of obligation."- Stephen Crane | mfigg@dsac.dla.mil CIS: 73777,360
bga@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Bruce Albrecht) (09/03/90)
I don't have a problem with them charging $40 for an upgrade, especially if
I had had the compiler for a while. However, I bought 5.05 two days after
they announced 5.10, and found out about it a couple of days after I had
bought it. I called SAS to see if it would be possible to get a free upgrade
due the timing of the purchase, and they said no. They hinted that they might
have done so if I had bought it directly from SAS, but since I hadn't, there
was nothing the could do about it. Fortunately, my dealer was willing to
send back the 5.05 to his distributor and order 5.10. Now I'm waiting for
5.10 to show up, and I hope it does soon....
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!bga
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!bga@nosc.mil
INET: bga@pnet51.orb.mn.org