Service Pack 3 for Visual Objects 2.8
in [Visual Objects]
|
Prev: Fabzip
Next: to call an URL from insite a VO-App
From: E®!k /!sser on 3 Sep 2009 16:12 "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> schreef in bericht news:0098d8e0$0$23101$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Hi Erik, > > I think you misunderstand if you think VOPS is a beta test group. Some > people there do test new builds against their own apps - you'd be crazy > not to before deploying them - but there is no obligation or expectation > that they do so. After all, subscribers are paying for access to new > builds and some support. If they were official testers, the pay should go > in the other direction, or at least the new builds should be free - anyway > that's how it works with other software I've tested. > > That said, there have been situations, even prior to VOPS, where a VO > build was released to the public before anybody outside Grafx (or CA) who > had access to early builds had a chance to work with it. I don't recall if > that was the case with sp 2 or not. Moreover, when I test my real life > apps, here's a partial list of all the stuff that doesn't get tested; VO > GUI, DBFNTX, DBserver Editor, SQL Classes, Internet Classes, SCC, external > prgs, macros, even memo fields! - because I don't use any of those in my > real life apps. My coding style may be very different from other VO > developers too, and I tend to use a small subset of the language features > (After working with VO from the first alpha, I've found that's the safest > approach. <g>). So in short, VOPS was never intended as a substitute for > product testing, and even if it were, my tests wouldn't be adequate to > find newly introduced bugs. Depending on your coding style, yours might > not be either. > > I have to agree that the list of bug fixes you get for the $99 doesn't > seem like a lot if anybody worked on VO bug fixes full time. But that has > never happened in recent memory, not even in the last few CA years. And in > any case, that's all the VOPS subscribers got too. So if you want a year's > VOPS subscription for VO only - well you have it with sp 3. > > Now since you are no longer using VO, I can certainly understand why even > $99 would not be a good investment for you. But for anybody else who is > still using VO and especially if they have encountered any of the bugs on > the sp 3 fixed list, it would seem to be a no-brainer investment. I did not ment to say I no longer use VO at all. I still have several apps out there to be maintained and although I am not a very well programmer and VO has been so very buggy (I have have to believe the current devteam) they still run pretty stable. But like I wrote in response to Robert, it is not about the amount of money. I might have considered to pay double for a SP2, but now I feel trapped and forced to pay for fixes for new introduced issues. Erik > > -- > > Ginny Caughey > www.wasteworks.com > > > > > "E�!k \/!sser" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:7ga3o0F2oupbtU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Hi Ginny, >> >> with all respect: >>> 1. I'm pretty sure that Grafx announced that sp 2 would be the last free >>> upgrade for VO. at the time sp 2 was released. Was sp 2 perfect? No. >>> Will sp 3 be perfect? No. That's life. >> >> SP2 made clear the VOPS is not even close to a beta forum. After Geoff >> has been wiped out there, there was (and probebly still is) nobody who >> installs the new releases and tests them with real-life apps right away. >> That lead to a buggy SP2 release with several new introduced bugs..It >> just wasn't tested in real life. >> Shortly after the release of SP2 Robert announce a quick and free patch >> for the new introduced shortcomings. >> Never seen that ( outside the VOPS forum) >> >>> 2. I think $99 for VO only is pretty reasonable. I guess you don't but I >>> think most people would. As I understand it the $99 sp 3 version is the >>> latest and greatest available on VOPS and represents a year's work. >> >> A year's work? If it takes a year between a SP2 and a SP3 release, that >> does not mean it was a year's work. If you look at the what's new list, >> you must agree this could be done within a month or so. >> Brian is businessman enough to not pay Robert for a year for only >> producing this release. >> On the other hand, this would explain the little progress on Vulcan... >> <g> >> >> I would be happy to pay USD 100 for a yearly update/fixes. But as Robert >> wrote in another posting, VO is (in my own words) like Michael Jackson: >> dead and waiting to be barried. So if Grafx is not going to support the >> product any longer, why should we support Grafx? >> If VO is no longer maintainted, CA can reclaim it. That would be the only >> reason I can think of for Grafx to come with a 'fake' SP so once in a >> while. >> >> >> Erik >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ginny Caughey >>> www.wasteworks.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Infoservice" <pippo(a)aol.it> wrote in message >>> news:4a9fca4b$0$43592$4fafbaef(a)reader1.news.tin.it... >>>> Brian, >>>> sure, and all were hoping for a VOPS only for VO at reasonable prices, >>>> but we have not had. >>>> Many people would buy and the development would be ensured. >>>> But today, with. NET on doors, I do believe that Vulcan will still have >>>> fewer users of Vo. >>>> The question, limited to of SP3, is not in money but in a way. >>>> Not to maintain that promise does not help the reputation of a company >>>> like Grafx >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Francesco >>>> >>>> >>>> "Geoff Schaller" <geoffx(a)softxwareobjectives.com.au> ha scritto nel >>>> messaggio news:PPBnm.15511$ze1.14271(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... >>>>> Francesco. >>>>> >>>>> Whilst I sympathise with your sentiment, the reality is that the VO >>>>> community is very small. The product contains issues and problems well >>>>> before GrafX took it over and whilst I agree that they should provide >>>>> patches for the new bugs they introduce, we have to support the >>>>> product somehow. This is perhaps the only way we will get anything >>>>> because I am certain VO is no longer a money spinner for anyone. >>>>> >>>>> Although I know there are literally 1000's of VO apps in operation out >>>>> there, active supporting developers would now number less than 600 >>>>> world-wide and the visible number of these is less than 200. It is a >>>>> very small user base to support. >>>>> >>>>> Geoff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Infoservice" <pippo(a)aol.it> wrote in message >>>>> news:4a9e5005$0$34620$4fafbaef(a)reader4.news.tin.it: >>>>> >>>>>> Brian, >>>>>> why paying for service packs? I shall correct my program's bug free! >>>>>> Is >>>>>> shameful! >>>>>> My idea of leaving VO is growing! >>>>>> Regards. >>>>>> Francesco Leo >>>>> >>>> >>
From: Alessandro Antonangeli on 3 Sep 2009 16:23 I think that if just they put some little new stuff, no one would have complained. As I just told some times ago, i would spend 100$ for some even little improvement every year. And I think a lot of people would. But to pay for bug fixes ... well ... Ciao Alessandro Ginny Caughey ha scritto: > Of course you can. ;-) I was just checking to see whether the $99 charge > would affect you because you still rely on VO, or if you're like Erik > and really don't care at this point. > > I think the point is that unless Grafx can generate a revenue stream to > pay for future service packs, there just won't be any. Anybody who's in > business understands this very well. >
From: Geoff Schaller on 3 Sep 2009 18:19 Ginny, I think you are a little cavalier with the facts here. Firstly, we were promised a quick FREE patch for the new bugs introduced into SP2 - of which there were several - last November. It never happened but I think we are entitled to this. Secondly, most people have offered, time and time again, to pay for an annual but small release of new fixes and minor features. I have already offered to pay for SP3 but the feature/fix list is very, very thin and if future ones are as thin, I won't offering money again. I am only paying for this one because I want the things broken on SP2 especially fixed, even though I believe Brian has a commercial and a moral obligation to provide them for free. Geoff "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message news:001ba023$0$19709$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com: > Francesco, > > A couple of points: > > 1. I'm pretty sure that Grafx announced that sp 2 would be the last free > upgrade for VO. at the time sp 2 was released. Was sp 2 perfect? No. Will sp > 3 be perfect? No. That's life. > 2. I think $99 for VO only is pretty reasonable. I guess you don't but I > think most people would. As I understand it the $99 sp 3 version is the > latest and greatest available on VOPS and represents a year's work. > > -- > > Ginny Caughey > www.wasteworks.com
From: Geoff Schaller on 3 Sep 2009 18:22 It absolutely is. The depth of the VOPS and the number of those willing to carry out genuine testing is vapour thin. The evidence is simple. Over 20 major new bugs were identified by the 'rest of us' not in the VOPS within 48 hours of its official release. And most of these were really obvious. Simple proof that there aren't a wide enough variety of VOPS members to test seriously and simple proof that Robert and Brian don't test to any depth. Geoff "wriedmann(a)gmx.net" <wriedmann(a)gmx.net> wrote in message news:VA.0000027b.01d8bd5c(a)gmx.net: > Hi Erik, > > > > After Geoff has > > been wiped out there, there was (and probebly still is) nobody who installs > > the new releases and tests them with real-life apps right away. > > > this is NOT true at all. > > Wolfgang
From: Geoff Schaller on 3 Sep 2009 18:24
Ginny, Wrong. The VOPS is Brian's beta group. What else could you call it? If it isn't, who is in the beta group. Nope, it was Brian's stated aim that VOPS would be his beta testers for both Vulcan and VO. There is no separate group. Geoff "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message news:0098d8e0$0$23101$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com: > Hi Erik, > > I think you misunderstand if you think VOPS is a beta test group. Some > people there do test new builds against their own apps - you'd be crazy not > to before deploying them - but there is no obligation or expectation that > they do so. After all, subscribers are paying for access to new builds and > some support. If they were official testers, the pay should go in the other > direction, or at least the new builds should be free - anyway that's how it > works with other software I've tested. |