bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu (03/18/90)
The "improvements" to THINK Pascal sound nice, but the upgrade price is a little steep. In fact, the new list price (I haven't seen the street price yet, maybe because it isn't on the street) seems rather, extremely high. When I bought Lightspeed Pascal v. 1.11 last fall, I paid maybe $65 for it. It was a nice package at a nice price. Fortunatly, I bought it late enough to qualify for a free upgrade to 2.0, otherwise, another $49. Now, the reason I bought it is that I like to mess around. It's a year and a half later and I am still unable to write Macintosh software (have had no time to learn, maybe next summer), however, I still do enjoy mucking about with it. Now, if LSP had cost $200-300, I would have never bought it. I probably would have (reluctantly) gone with ZBasic. The lesson: I think there is a market for a relativly low cost Pascal compiler. I have heard of Macintosh Pascal (by Symantic) but have also heard that a)it's interpreted--not so good, and b)very little else, it's not advertised and to my knowledge no mail-order has it. Conclusion: I think it is a mistake for Symantic to give up on the low-end, dabbler market. Or even to squeeze the slightly less dabbling market (i.e. the people who write and release freeware, or even shareware). The upgrade prices are definatly too high. However, the upgrade *is* quite substantial (I mean, and entire class library? that's not so bad if one compares to MacApp), and deserves a good price. Thus the dilemma. My suggestion: Why not separate things up a bit? For example, I would really like to have Rez and DeRez (a bunch of listings of source code use this format rather than RMaker, and I, personally with my dabbler mentality, lack the knowledge to port from Rez to Rmaker, or even to use the Rez code to create the resources properly in ResEdit. Thus, Symantic, you wouldn't have to give up the effort it took to develop TCL, but I wouldn't have to pay $69 (or whatever) upgrade fee, when what I mainly want is Rez (I'm no where near doing OOP programming; when I am, I'll be happy to pay)(note too, the cost of the upgrade is near the cost of what I originally paid, yet I will most likely use little of the new functionality). I don't know how much of a market there is for "my" end of it. I wouldn't mind doing a little survay (posting this to comp.sys.mac) to find out. I think there might be a nice market, esp. among students (like myself). If this could be handled with educational discounts on *upgrades* (something which is sore lacking, I believe) that could be fine, as well. Looking forward to the response (esp. from you Rich). Bijan J. Parsia
ken@wj.msc.umn.edu (Ken Chin-Purcell) (03/19/90)
In article <12004@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: > The "improvements" to THINK Pascal sound nice, > but the upgrade price is a little steep. My reaction was just the opposite. For $69 I promptly received five disks and three manuals, providing me with a complete object programming environment. Given the cost of good Macintosh programmers and tech writers, packaging, advertising, support and overhead, I think Symantec's upgrade price is very reasonable. \/ Ken Chin-Purcell <> also known as ken@msc.umn.edu and (612)626-1340 /\ Minnesota Supercomputer Center, University of Minnesota
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (03/20/90)
In article <12004@eagle.wesleyan.edu> bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >The "improvements" to THINK Pascal sound nice, but the upgrade price is a >little steep. > >In fact, the new list price (I haven't seen the street price yet, maybe because >it isn't on the street) seems rather, extremely high. > >When I bought Lightspeed Pascal v. 1.11 last fall, I paid maybe $65 for it. It >was a nice package at a nice price. Fortunatly, I bought it late enough to >qualify for a free upgrade to 2.0, otherwise, another $49. By way of justification: Lightspeed Pascal came out in 1986. That was four years ago. Since then, four years worth of research and development have gone into making successively better versions of THINK Pascal, in response to our customers' requests and with some new features dreamed up by our engineers, of which I am one. THINK Pascal 2.0 included completely rewritten documentation, in a new manual format. This required a year of concentrated effort by our documentation group. THINK Pascal 2.0 also included many new features and improvements on old features. THINK Pascal 3.0 included support for MacApp, a class library of its own, THREE brand-new manuals, and TWO new disks. These upgrades cost money to produce. There are the salaries of the development team, the cost of materials, and the cost of production. The shelf packages also cost money to produce and distribute. The increase in list price is a reflection of all these factors, and also a reflection of our positioning of THINK Pascal as a development environment of professional capability, but one which is still suited to novice work. Furthermore, the cost of the package (and upgrades) includes things like the cost (to us) of our free telephone tech support. Consider, by way of contrast, the cost of a roughly comparable package: MPW, from APDA; the "MPW Pascal Bundle" costs $400. Subtract $100 for the Assember (which THINK Pascal doesn't supply), but add $100 for MacApp. The total cost is still $400. This is considerably more than $249 for THINK Pascal, and it's not discounted anywhere, whereas you can get THINK Pascal 3.0 on the street for somewhere in the vicinity of $100. Also, it costs $195 to upgrade your MPW Pascal package. This is also considerably more than the $69 we're asking. The point I'm trying to make is that while you may think that $69 is an expensive upgrade, it's not. Since you (by your own statement) paid $65 for the original package, the total cost of a THINK Pascal 3.0 is $134, which is comparable to the street price. I'm not unsympathetic to your position, because I was once a broke college student, and even now I don't exactly have dollar bills stuffing my mattress. However, it's in the bst insterest of the company, and its customers, to at least break even on the products they sell. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When someone who makes four hundred and fifty dollars an hour wants to tell you something for free, it's a good idea to listen." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (03/20/90)
In article <2277@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: >In article <12004@eagle.wesleyan.edu> bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >>The "improvements" to THINK Pascal sound nice, but the upgrade price is a >>little steep. > [more deleted] > >By way of justification: [ eloquent justification deleted (in the interest of brevity) but here are some of Rich's justifications for the cost (read the original for all the details) - development costs - duplication costs (two more disks) - packaging - new documentation - cost of phone support - positioning of THINK Pascal as a professional tool - etc. ] This is all well and good Rich, but you didn't address a suggestion made by a previous poster that the Class Library be unbundled. Not everyone needs or wants the class library. It seems that you could spin the library off as another product and price it so that the price of the library and THINK Pascal would be greater than the bundle is now ( to reflect separate packaging and promotion costs). I have to say though, I felt that THINK Pascal 2.0 was a real bargain. Slickest development environment this side of Smalltalk. I only hope that THINK Pascal 3.0 is as cool (I'm sure it will be.) Long live the auto-reformatter!!! -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (03/21/90)
Rich, I believe you when you say the upgrade to THINK Pascal 3.0 is well worth the $69. I'm trying to figure out a way to justify spending the money for it, myself. (Since I don't really have the time to develop salable products, this isn't easy.) My concern is, rather, that I think there is still a place for "real" Pascal, the language defined by Wirth, and there is still a place for inexpensive implementations of that language. "Pascal" 3.0 has, I presume, the necessary extensions to deal with an object-oriented library. But I'll bet a lot of people would still just like to have Pascal, without paying the premium for the non-Pascal object-oriented features. It would have been nice to keep Pascal 2.0, and name the new package something like "Pascal+", with a clear upgrade path. So far I've seen nothing to imply that 2.0 will still be available--will it? (Yes, I've used MacPascal. I'll stick with 2.0.) -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. << "Next time, Jack, write a goddamned memo!" >>
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (03/21/90)
In article <172@farcomp.UUCP> murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: >In article <2277@husc6.harvard.edu> siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel) writes: >>In article <12004@eagle.wesleyan.edu> bparsia@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: >>>The "improvements" to THINK Pascal sound nice, but the upgrade price is a >>>little steep. >> [more deleted] >> >>By way of justification: >[ eloquent justification deleted (in the interest of brevity) > but here are some of Rich's justifications for the cost (read the original > for all the details) > - development costs > - duplication costs (two more disks) > - packaging > - new documentation > - cost of phone support > - positioning of THINK Pascal as a professional tool > - etc. >] > >This is all well and good Rich, but you didn't address a suggestion >made by a previous poster that the Class Library be unbundled. Not >everyone needs or wants the class library. It seems that you could >spin the library off as another product and price it so that the >price of the library and THINK Pascal would be greater than the >bundle is now ( to reflect separate packaging and promotion costs). > >I have to say though, I felt that THINK Pascal 2.0 was a real >bargain. Slickest development environment this side of Smalltalk. >I only hope that THINK Pascal 3.0 is as cool (I'm sure it will be.) > >Long live the auto-reformatter!!! I also think that is should be unbundled (the class library). But maybe it can't. I'm glad that TP3.0 will support MacApp. I bought MPW when it was 2.0.2 with the pascal compiler. It cost a bundle. I didn't upgrade to 3.0 because it was still beta so I kept using TP. The upgrade also was also mucho bucks. So I waited. I called last week to upgrade MPW to 3.0 whatever and the said there is no upgrade path from 2.0.2 you have to buy the whole thing again! Apple's not making enough profit on their hardware so now they have to screw the little developers. *uck them. That $69 is looking a lot better. Sorry to be so blunt but I had to scrape by for months after buying MPW now I can't even afford to upgrade it. No wonder why there is software piracy. I think I call Symantec right now and order the upgrade. :-) >____________________________________________________________________ >Have a day. :^| >Murat N. Konar >murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com Disclaimer: I don't pirate software, nor do I recommend it, I just wish APDA would think about the prices they charge. Developing for the mac can only help apple not hurt them. And if they want OOP to develop the platform must be affordable. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (03/21/90)
In article <172@farcomp.UUCP> murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) writes: > >This is all well and good Rich, but you didn't address a suggestion >made by a previous poster that the Class Library be unbundled. Not It's still a possibility, but at this time, including the Class Library fits in best with our goal of providing a complete integrated development solution. R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When someone who makes four hundred and fifty dollars an hour wants to tell you something for free, it's a good idea to listen." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) (03/21/90)
After using Think Pascal for a couple of weeks now, my vote would be to continue bundling the TCLs. Most of the upgrade is support for OOP, so those using NOOP (non-object oriented programming) will see some improvement, although not as dramatic as the change from 1.0 to 2.0. Let's face it, even version 2.0 still stands as a great product for us NOOPers. But the libraries should be bundled. By including them, Symantec helps us with an easy path to move into OOP when we're ready (or when Apple forces us to do so as they've threatened). If everybody has the libraries, then there's more capability for more people to get into OOP. Besides, if it were unbundled, the price for Pascal upgrade alone would still be at least $49 or so (upgrade costs to a manufacturer often equal actual new purchaser costs) where the TCL's would probably be as prohibitively expensive as MPW. -Owen Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET Brown University Computer Science omh@cs.brown.edu uunet!brunix!omh "Don't wait up for me tonight because I won't be home for a month."
Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Spencer) (03/22/90)
>I also think that is should be unbundled (the class library). But >maybe it can't. I'm glad that TP3.0 will support MacApp. I bought >MPW when it was 2.0.2 with the pascal compiler. It cost a bundle. >I didn't upgrade to 3.0 because it was still beta so I kept using >TP. The upgrade also was also mucho bucks. So I waited. I called >last week to upgrade MPW to 3.0 whatever and the said there is >no upgrade path from 2.0.2 you have to buy the whole thing again! You really want to scream: there was an upgrade path (albeit a very expensive one) but it ran out in February!! Isn't APDA wonderful! -- Jim Spencer - via FidoNet node 1:282/33 UUCP: ...!uunet!imagery!22.5!Jim.Spencer ARPA: Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG
<DN5@psuvm.psu.edu> (03/23/90)
In article <50.260A1150@imagery.FIDONET.ORG>, Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Spencer) says: > > >I called > >last week to upgrade MPW to 3.0 whatever and the said there is > >no upgrade path from 2.0.2 you have to buy the whole thing again! > >You really want to scream: there was an upgrade path (albeit a very >expensive one) but it ran out in February!! Isn't APDA wonderful! What???!!! I hadn't heard that there was a deadline on this? I have been a VERY loyal MPW user since 2.0.2, even convincing my workplace that MPW was the developement system of choice. This, even in the face of APDA trouble and MacApp incompatabilities (not to mention the trouble with SADE). While we do have MPW 3.0 at work, I still have 2.0.2 at home. I was going to be upgrading next month when I'll get a contract which would require MPW 3.0. Now I don't know what I'll do... If this is true, they I might just suggest another developement platform for both my contract and for work (while I can't say what goes into the student Mac sites, I DO have a voice in the developement efforts here at Penn State!). I have heard that Apple has left early supports in the lurch before, but nothing in the past has convinced me that this was true. As a company Apple has tried to provide upgrades for users whenever possible, realizing that their developement costs money, and so has to charge these users for their upgrades. However, not giving any break to early supporters of MPW will be the first time I am convinced that Apple has deserted us. Could somebody from Apple please respond to this message, or could somebody post the USnail Mail address of some higher-ups in APDA so that I could query them directly. D. Jay Newman Programmer/Analyst dn5@psuvm.psu.edu
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (03/24/90)
Dear Jim - We offered an upgrade program for those folks that wanted to update from MPW 2.0.2 to MPW 3.0 that lasted 13 months. Given that the industry standard seems to be in the range of three to four months, I think that we did a very nice job. In fact, we are now limiting our update programs to 90 days. If you don't buy it during those 90 days, then you miss out. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (03/24/90)
In article <39781@apple.Apple.COM>, jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes... >Dear Jim - > We offered an upgrade program for those folks that wanted to update from >MPW 2.0.2 to MPW 3.0 that lasted 13 months. Given that the industry standard >seems to be in the range of three to four months, I think that we did a >very nice job. > In fact, we are now limiting our update programs to 90 days. If you don't >buy it during those 90 days, then you miss out. OK, but then APDA needs to be much more reliable about getting us our APDAlog's promptly. (Or, given that there was no last issue, perhaps getting it to us at all would be a good start :->). Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (03/24/90)
Dear Jay - The upgrade for MPW 2.0.2 to MPW 3.0 was offered from January 1989 to February 1990. In the Fall 1989 APDALog, it was stated that the update would only be available through February 1990. This mean that the upgrade was available for 13 months, given the industry standard of between 3 and 4 month, I don't think that we were leaving people in the lurch. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (03/24/90)
Dear Robert - True and when APDA is poor in getting the information out, They are usually very good about giving people the benefit of the doubt. But people also have the responsibility to make sure that their address is up to date with APDA, for example I was talking with a developer who was blasting me for not getting any information from APDA since May of last year. I asked him if he had moved, and he replied, "Yes." I asked him if he had sent a change of address to APDA, and he said, "No." I then asked him how he expected APDA to get the APDAlog out to him, and he said, "Well, that is their problem." -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (03/24/90)
In article <90082.141345DN5@psuvm.psu.edu>, DN5@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > In article <50.260A1150@imagery.FIDONET.ORG>, > Jim.Spencer@p5.f22.n282.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Spencer) says: > > > > >I called > > >last week to upgrade MPW to 3.0 whatever and the said there is > > >no upgrade path from 2.0.2 you have to buy the whole thing again! > > > >You really want to scream: there was an upgrade path (albeit a very > >expensive one) but it ran out in February!! Isn't APDA wonderful! > > What???!!! I hadn't heard that there was a deadline on this? I have > been a VERY loyal MPW user since 2.0.2, even convincing my workplace > that MPW was the developement system of choice. This, even in the > face of APDA trouble and MacApp incompatabilities (not to mention > the trouble with SADE). > > While we do have MPW 3.0 at work, I still have 2.0.2 at home. I > was going to be upgrading next month when I'll get a contract > which would require MPW 3.0. Now I don't know what I'll do... > Buy TML Pascal? Has anyone out there used it lately? Is it any good? It includes MPW for a fraction of Apple's price. Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (03/27/90)
>In article <39781@apple.Apple.COM> jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: > Dear Jim, > We offered an upgrade program for those folks that wanted to update from >MPW 2.0.2 to MPW 3.0 that lasted 13 months. Given that the industry standard >seems to be in the range of three to four months, I think that we did a >very nice job. > In fact, we are now limiting our update programs to 90 days. If you don't >buy it during those 90 days, then you miss out. What would it hurt to keep the upgrade policy in force? If now my only choice is to buy the whole thing again then I'm not going to do it. Apple gets no money. If the upgrade policy is still in force when I can afford or have a real need then I will pay for it Apple gets lots of money. xx% of something is better than 100% of nothing. P.S. MacTech Quarterly is selling TML Pascal II ver3.0 with mpw 3.0 for a hundred bucks. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________