|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This car analogy is hoaky. The reason people may use an old DOS program is
because it was coded with quality and still runs like a champ. If a car is
10 years old it is not necessarily outdated (it still uses gasoline). Most
of this get a new car attitude is to keep up appearances with their
neighbors. If software was designed with quality in mind like my old Honda
Accord that is 12+ years old 140,000 miles and not one repair (only basic
maintenance) customers would be a lot happier. Someone out there may rebutt
"well its first to market that counts in the software business not quailty".
Well I would reply by saying that -- if you spend the time designing the
software with high quality in the first place it is easier to maintain and
make improvents upon the base code in future releases. When you start
getting into fixing later with patches you get a bandaid affect that starts
getting messy. You would have been better off spending more time before
releasing the program to make it right the first time. This would give you
a starting advantage over other companies even though you lagged in
releasing. If your car lasted like a champ for years and years you would
likely purchase that brand again. If it craps out alot you are going to
look for something better next time you are up for purchasing again. There
is more money in selling 5 long lasting high quality cars to a person in a
lifetime than to sell then 1 crappy one and have them never return. If my
old DOS program worked like a champ I would be more likely to purchase the
windows version from the same company that made the DOS version. If the DOS
version was junk I would look of another company that had a similar program
when upgrade time came about.
La Gonzo
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Parsons <richard.p.parsons@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Gary Funck <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Y2K Blackmail?
>I am at a loss to understand why there is so much critism of Omega over the
>Y2K problem. Every other Software writer in the world has been exploiting
>this for the last 20 years or so. Thats why $millions will have to be spent
>putting the problem right. There was a post on this list recently comparing
>software to a motor car. The inference being that software would become
>obsolete just like a car. I dare say there are people around who will
>continue to use DOS programs just as there are those who run 10 year old
>cars.
>
>At least we know what will happen with the Omega product on 31st Dec 1999;
>without a patch it will not read '00'. Just 22 months to get your money's
>worth.<g>
>
>The fact that a motor car depreciates rapidly hasn't stopped them being
sold
>in increasing numbers. If you like the product, buy it; if not, buy
>something else.
>
>Richard
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Funck <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: 18 February 1998 15:37
>Subject: Re: Y2K Blackmail?
>
>
>>On Feb 18, 4:46am, Orphelin@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Yes...
>>> Until Year 2000 if...
>>> If Omega wants to stop SafeSoft piracy, they could be wise to release
the
>TS4
>>> Y2000 patch with an extra protection to the users that do not want to
>upgrade
>>> to TS5.
>>> Doing so, all the illegal TS4 and below copies will die at the end of
the
>>> century.
>>
>>Independent of the merits/demerits of dongles and Safekey's, I
>>think there ought to be a law against a company that takes advantage
>>of a Year 2000 bug, and uses it as a method for ensuring that its
>>customers upgrade to the new Y2K-compliant version.
>>
>>Just curious, has anyone tried advancing the date (is this even
>>possible with a realtime data feed?) past 2000, to see what TS4 and TS3
>>do with that? For example, one could build an ASCII file of historical
>>data for '97 and '98, and change '97 -> '99 and '98 -> '00 and see
>>what happens. Mark, have you tried this?
>>
>>While we're on the subject, do the various historical and realtime
>>datafeed providers have implicit Y2K compliant problems as well?
>>
>>
>>--
>>--
>>| Gary Funck, Intrepid Technology, gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx, (650) 964-8135
>>
>
|