jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (06/01/91)
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: >I wouldn't go so far as to say the "only" use would be to steal a copy. >I would love a service that would let me try software for a week before >buying it. Does a word processor do what you need? Does it feel right? >Is it easy to use? The only way to find out now is usually to plop >down a couple of hundred dollars and, if you don't like the way the >thing works, well, too bad, you're stuck. >Granted, borrowing software is not the only solution to this problem. >Microsoft is heading in the right direction with its working models. I agree. My policy is to never buy software before getting a copy to use for awhile. This is a policy developed in the school of hard knocks. Working models or any other technique short of the actual software that my money buys me is unacceptable. Besides verifying that the software will actually run, my main interest is to verify that the philosophy of the developers is compatable with mine. In many instances, such as with CAD software, there is little alternative than to actually design something with it. I can't really envision any other mechanism than rental to fulfill this need. I am unwilling to expend any more effort than what it takes to pitch bad software disks in the trash. That rules out money-back offers. The hassles with getting refunds and RMAs are just not worth it. I'd be much happier paying someone a few bucks for a rental instead of having to troll around for someone to cut me some disks. The pathalogical, instutionalized paranoia present in most software companies tends to prevent this. Ironically, it is the smaller companies that are hurt the most by this paranoia. It's much less likely that a small company product will be laying around a colleague's computer. Thus I can't look at it. Thus I don't buy it. Is that hard to understand? Wonder why so many software companies seem incapable of comprehending? John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) (06/01/91)
In article <20197@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes: > >>I wouldn't go so far as to say the "only" use would be to steal a copy. >>I would love a service that would let me try software for a week before >>buying it. Does a word processor do what you need? Does it feel right? >>Is it easy to use? The only way to find out now is usually to plop >>down a couple of hundred dollars and, if you don't like the way the >>thing works, well, too bad, you're stuck. > >>Granted, borrowing software is not the only solution to this problem. >>Microsoft is heading in the right direction with its working models. > >I agree. My policy is to never buy software before getting a copy to use >for awhile. This is a policy developed in the school of hard knocks. >Working models or any other technique short of the actual software that >my money buys me is unacceptable. > >Besides verifying that the software will actually run, my main interest >is to verify that the philosophy of the developers is compatable with >mine. In many instances, such as with CAD software, there is little >alternative than to actually design something with it. > >I can't really envision any other mechanism than rental to fulfill >this need. I am unwilling to expend any more effort than what it takes >to pitch bad software disks in the trash. That rules out money-back >offers. The hassles with getting refunds and RMAs are just not worth it. > >I'd be much happier paying someone a few bucks for a rental instead of >having to troll around for someone to cut me some disks. The pathalogical, >instutionalized paranoia present in most software companies tends to >prevent this. Ironically, it is the smaller companies that are hurt >the most by this paranoia. It's much less likely that a small company >product will be laying around a colleague's computer. Thus I can't >look at it. Thus I don't buy it. Is that hard to understand? Wonder >why so many software companies seem incapable of comprehending? > I agree that it would be nice to be able to rent software to try it out -- it would also be nice to be able to leave your house unlocked when you go out, so that passing strangers could drop in out of the rain. Violating existing copyright laws for the purpose does not seem to me the best approach. Do you want to run software from a "used" disk, and pick up god knows what viral infections? What is needed is a way to do this incooperation with the vendors, to our mutual advantage. -------------------+------------------------------------------- Al Dunbar | Edmonton, Alberta | Disclaimer: "not much better than CANADA | datclaimer" -------------------+-------------------------------------------
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (06/04/91)
In article <RN.1269@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA>, userAKDU@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Al Dunbar) wrote: }In article <20197@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: }>I'd be much happier paying someone a few bucks for a rental instead of }>having to troll around for someone to cut me some disks. The pathalogical, }>instutionalized paranoia present in most software companies tends to }>prevent this. Ironically, it is the smaller companies that are hurt } }I agree that it would be nice to be able to rent software to }try it out -- it would also be nice to be able to leave your }house unlocked when you go out, so that passing strangers }could drop in out of the rain. One can't really blame the software companies for being somewhat paranoid. Best current estimates are that there are two pirate copies for every three legit copies of commercial software in the US. The rest of the world is far worse (for most of Europe, the estimates are four to five pirate copies per legit copy) since user education and the legal systems haven't come as far yet in recognizing software property rights. (though I feel that US law is swinging too far toward protection of algorithms and parts of programs, to the detriment of users and developers alike) -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/53 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? Did | It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's I claim something?| what we know that ain't so. --Will Rogers