stevek@hp-ptp.HP.COM (Steve_Kite) (05/25/90)
I am a registered user of B&F and find the program to be everything that I need. Yes, I had to put up with a couple of annoying features before I registered, but now that I am a registered user, I no longer have to. I have tried Software Carousel, and was very dissatisfied. I am forced to use command.com :-( instead of my normal command proccessor 4DOS. I feel that BBS's are an appropriate way to distribute shareware. It is an easy channel for small companies, and I as a user, don't have to pay for it before I try it out. Go to your local store and ask to try software before you pay for it. I also get better support from shareware companies that I do from large corporations. Disclamer: I have no affiliation with JP Software or Progressive Solutions other than as a satisfied user. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ If a jimbuck stands alone by the sea, on a night when the ~ ~ dark moon sings, how many grains on sand in a single one of ~ ~ his footprints? ~ ~ ~ ~ steve kite - hp-ptp!stevek - stevek@hp-ptp.HP.COM ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gmartin@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Hackman) (05/25/90)
portuesi@sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes..... > >To add insult to injury, the developers went out of its way to say >that they didn't employ any "crippling" features in their freely >distributable version. If forced task switches aren't crippling a >product's utility, I don't know what is. Doesn't anybody else find >the terrorist tactics employed in shareware software on the PC pretty >shameful? It is unfortunate that some shareware developers feel that this has to be done. However, as a member of a shareware development team, I can understand some of the rationale behind this, as too many people have just taken the shareware and made it into freeware. There are just too many dishonest people out there. > >I'm pretty new to the MS-DOS universe. So far, I've encountered >several shareware programs that don't compare with commercial software >in either features or support, but demand shareware fees which >approach those of commercial software. For $30 more than the "Back >and Forth" shareware fee, I can buy DESQView -- a proven commercial >product that certainly has more features and has a solid support base. >I would have paid a $25 shareware fee for "Back and Forth", because it >does all that I really need. But at $50, I'll simply buy DESQView. Some times what you say is the case, however, most good shareware developers (I like to think of our team as a good one) ask you for a registration fee that allows you free upgrades for a set period of time (our's is a year). We also have a seperate phone number just for supportquestions, and we ALWAYS look into bug reports and 'wish list' requests right away, often releasing another version after significant bugs have been fixed. This fosters a good relationship between the developers and the users, which is the basis of the shareware principle. > >Before anybody accuses me of looking a gift horse in the mouth, >consider that these people are not offering me a gift. They are using >public sources like SIMTEL and BBS systems as distribution channels >for marketing their product. This is true, but remember, a lot of shareware development is done as a side hobby or interest, and the startup cost of marketing a product is tremendous, not to mention the legal hassles, etc. It is much more efficient to distribute it through these channels. Basically, my point is that you shouldn't condemn all shareware developers for the actions of a few that don't believe in the true Hacker Ethic of shareware. -<<HM>> -- Guy Martin (Hackman) // Internet: gmartin@polyslo.calpoly.edu --------------------- // Fubarnet: hackman@fubarsys.slo.ca.us I don't need GOD, all \\ // AIX: gmartin@nike.calpoly.edu I need is an ---------> \X/ UUCP: ucbvax!voder!polyslo!gmartin