atheybey@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU (08/19/87)
Repository: PTT Originating-Client: flower I just called Manx about getting an update for my relatively ancient (February 86) 3.20a version of their C compiler. I was told that there are two types of update that I can get. I can send them two disks and get a free "standard update," which consists of "bug fixes and 1.2 AmigaDOS support." (These are more-or-less correct quotes.) Otherwise, I can pay $50 for the "enhanced update" which apparently is 3.4a complete with the utilities make, diff, grep, vi, etc. Unfortunately, the person on the phone could not tell me exactly what the difference between the two updates is. If the difference is only the utilities (which weren't included in my original "Developer's" version), I certainly don't need them (the PD make I have is supposedly better than Manx's anyway). However, the above quote about "bug fixes" seems to imply that I will just be getting a fixed 3.2 compiler, rather than 3.4. The problem is that the person I talked to didn't really know the difference between the updates, and only could read the same words about bux fixes to me again (along with the blurb about 3.4 contained in Manx magazine ads). If I am going to get an update, I want 3.4. I would not be especially happy with paying $50 for it, but if that's what it takes I will do it. Does anyone out there know for sure what the difference between these two updates is? (Someone must have done this before me--I must be the last person who only has 3.2.) Email is probably appropriate for answers, unless the replier thinks otherwise. thanks, Andrew Heybey atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/20/87)
In article <8708191652.AA06573@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU> atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu writes: > >I just called Manx about getting an update for my relatively ancient >(February 86) 3.20a version of their C compiler. I was told that >there are two types of update that I can get. I can send them two >disks and get a free "standard update," which consists of "bug fixes >and 1.2 AmigaDOS support." (These are more-or-less correct quotes.) >Otherwise, I can pay $50 for the "enhanced update" which apparently is >3.4a complete with the utilities make, diff, grep, vi, etc. >[... This] seems to imply that I will just be getting a fixed 3.2 >compiler, rather than 3.4. (I hope somebody from Manx is listening.) [No personal axe to grind here, I wouldn't use a C compiler if you gave it to me. ;-)] Back in 1981 I worked for a company that let itself be sucked into the trap of maintaining multiple parallel versions of the same software. It was a raging disaster. Not only do you have more than double the maintenance costs (because no one is actively developing the old version, no one is day to day familiar with it, and it takes a lot longer to fix mistakes), but also you end up with folks getting confused about what works where, and adding bugs to the new software based on how they just saw the old one work, and vice versa. You add lots of extra costs for storage, and for keeping track of what version goes where, and ... you get the idea. That $50 Manx thinks it is making with this deal is an illusion. Worse yet, it is a subtle one, and the money will evaporate without anyone at Manx being the wiser about why it never showed up on the bottom line. It will be just another example of: "Maintenance costs are eating us alive", without the added "Aha!" of: "and it's our own fault." Giving away the latest version to buyers of the old version builds great customer relations, and extracts you from what is otherwise a real quagmire. You make up for the lossage on passing out the fruits of your labor free to the old customers by the gobs of free word of mouth advertising they give you in return, and the resulting increased sales to their friends and relations. A word to the wise is supposed to suffice. Kent, the man from xanth.
jdh@bsu-cs.UUCP (John Hiday) (08/22/87)
In article <2195@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >In article <8708191652.AA06573@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU> atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu >writes: >> >> [Question about difference between $50 and free Manx 3.20 -> 3.4 update] >> >>[... This] seems to imply that I will just be getting a fixed 3.2 >>compiler, rather than 3.4. > >Back in 1981 I worked for a company that let itself be sucked into the >trap of maintaining multiple parallel versions of the same software. > [Remainder deleted...] Huh? 3.20 and 3.4 are not parallel versions as far as I know. The deal is: Send in $0.00 and you get the 3.4 release of the package you have. Send in $50.00 and you get the afforementioned 3.4 release PLUS several utilities like make, grep, diff, Z (vi clone), etc. In 3.20 the developer package did not include these utilities, but in 3.4 it does, thus if you are an original 3.20 owner you have not yet paid for them. I have the developer package and went through this upgrade myself several months ago (though I didn't have to send in blank floppies like the original poster suggested). -- == John Hiday UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!jdh == Ball State University / University Computing Services GEnie: JDHIDAY == Muncie, IN 47306
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (08/23/87)
In article <1030@bsu-cs.UUCP> jdh@bsu-cs.UUCP (John Hiday) writes: >In article <2195@xanth.UUCP> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>In article <8708191652.AA06573@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU> atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu >>writes: >>> >>> [Question about difference between $50 and free Manx 3.20 -> 3.4 update] >>> >>>[... This] seems to imply that I will just be getting a fixed 3.2 >>>compiler, rather than 3.4. >> >>Back in 1981 I worked for a company that let itself be sucked into the >>trap of maintaining multiple parallel versions of the same software. >> [Remainder deleted...] > >Huh? 3.20 and 3.4 are not parallel versions as far as I know. > >The deal is: Send in $0.00 and you get the 3.4 release of the package you >have. Send in $50.00 and you get the afforementioned 3.4 release PLUS >several utilities like make, grep, diff, Z (vi clone), etc. [more deleted...] Well, on the presumption that 3.2 derived from 3.4, and that the bug fixes to 3.2 exist, then they are headed right for the tar bits! ;-) The point I was trying to make was that it isn't worth the $50 per copy difference TO MANX to continue maintaining 3.2. I've been there - trust me. After we got the software at my former employers up to a new release point, we then lost 4-6 weeks, typically of two people full time, while the updates were merged and tested into the multiple releases. And promptly as we let them out, the bug reports due to the confusion this caused US, started pouring in. Now if MANX receives a bug report on 3.2, and researches and fixes it (and, by nature, they grow more subtle with time, the easy ones shake out early), then they must enter the scenario I described in my earlier posting, of trying to make the corresponding change in 3.4, WITHOUT BREAKING all the changes from 3.2 to 3.4, and subsequent bug fixes to 3.4. All the neat utilities released with 3.4 are irrelevant to the discussion. Kent, the man from xanth.