Turbo Products are on Sabbatical
Jolyon Smith
Tim Del Chiaro of CodeGear has said:
> The plan for the Turbo 2008s is to have them be the base level free editions
> in the Delphi 2008 and C++Builder 2008 product lines and less focus on Turbo
> as a brand.
Just wanted to bring this welcome clarification to the attention of a
wider audience than the "retirement" thread followers.
:)
Ed
Pardon me for being dense, but I don't quite understand what Tim's
saying. Is he trying to do something like "Turbo *" = "Delphi *
Personal"?
Edmund
Michael C.
I think that's actually a great plan.
This way people can educate themselves how
to use Delphi, work with code examples from the internet or a book,
and if they want more they can purchase the full version.
That is some good news.
Kostya
> This way people can educate themselves how
> to use Delphi, work with code examples from the internet or a book,
> and if they want more they can purchase the full version.
> That is some good news.
Well, at $400 Turbo Pro was somewhat affordable
for newcomers. At $900 or whatever I really doubt
Delphi would attract any new followers no matter
how nice and superior it is
Kryvich
> Well, at $400 Turbo Pro was somewhat affordable
> for newcomers. At $900 or whatever I really doubt
> Delphi would attract any new followers no matter
> how nice and superior it is
CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
May be just compiler+debugger+IDE without any advanced features?
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
Since Turdo Explorer never was like the Personal editions, I don't
think so. He is merely saying thast the Turbo name will be reserved for
the (free?) entry level editions. Current free Turbo Explorer IDEs have
a full license (you can create commercial products with them) and
almost everything the Pro version has. They are only restricted WRT
component installation.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"War is not the continuation of politics with different means,
it is the greatest mass-crime perpetrated on the community of
man." -- Alfred Adler
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Kostya wrote:
>
> > Well, at $400 Turbo Pro was somewhat affordable
> > for newcomers. At $900 or whatever I really doubt
> > Delphi would attract any new followers no matter
> > how nice and superior it is
>
> CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
Who are "we"? <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"In any contest between power and patience, bet on patience."
-- W.B. Prescott
Brad White
Jolyon,
I don't get to agree with you very often, so
I wanted to jump on this. 8:-)
Yes, this is very welcome.
I never did understand the whole idea of
the Turbos being a separate brand/line.
The implication that there *will* be a
2008 Turbo is also welcome.
Thanks,
Brad.
Kryvich
>> CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
> Who are "we"? <g>
Oh, not "we" but "you" (they :) )
Kent Briggs
> Since Turdo Explorer never was
Hmm, Freudian slip?
--
Kent Briggs, kbr...@spamcop.net
Briggs Softworks, http://www.briggsoft.com
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
>
> > Since Turdo Explorer never was
>
> Hmm, Freudian slip?
Oops! No, just a honest typo. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything
that counts can be counted." -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
I can't. I'm not CodeGear.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"People who think they know everything greatly annoy those of
us who do."
Tim Del Chiaro (CodeGear)
Tim
"Kryvich" <kry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:135385561.20...@gmail.com...
John
> The implication that there *will* be a
> 2008 Turbo is also welcome.
The "Turbo" line should be always free, like MS "Express" line.
Having a commercial line under that name (Turbo Pro) is very confusing
as it results two commercial lines of products - Turbo and RAD Studio.
Looks like they are going to eliminate that confusion. That's a welcome
sign.
Rick Carter
>The "Turbo" line should be always free, like MS "Express" line.
>Having a commercial line under that name (Turbo Pro) is very confusing
>as it results two commercial lines of products - Turbo and RAD Studio.
>
>Looks like they are going to eliminate that confusion. That's a welcome
>sign.
Lately your posts seem to be overwhelmingly positive and optimistic.
On the one hand I'm glad to see it, but in this case I guess it means it's
up to me to take the other side. :)
Let's wait and see how everything plays out before we say things will be
less confusing.
All me have to do today is look at the current state of the
www.turboexplorer.com website, or the current state of the Roadmap (where
it talks about Highlander as if it were yet to be released) to see that
there are still plenty of places where CodeGear goes out of their way to
confuse customers.
It's not that all CG employees are dummies, or that they're lazy. It's
more a matter of PHBs who won't give their approval to anything that makes
sense.
Rick Carter
cart...@despammed.com
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
I.P. Nichols
>
> All me have to do today is look at the current state of the
> www.turboexplorer.com website, or the current state of the Roadmap (where
> it talks about Highlander as if it were yet to be released) to see that
> there are still plenty of places where CodeGear goes out of their way to
> confuse customers.
>
> It's not that all CG employees are dummies, or that they're lazy. It's
> more a matter of PHBs who won't give their approval to anything that makes
> sense.
Is John Kaster classified as a PHB?
Brad White
Are you suggesting that he is part of the
problem, or that he is a counter-example?
Brad.
Rick Carter
IMHO John Kaster is one of the good guys, but it seems like he's still
fighting battles trying to get the changes made that need to be made.
Check the recent messages in borland.public.bdn.website. A few weeks ago,
Uffe called attention to the problem with the Roadmap. John's answer
seems to me to imply that he was already painfully aware of the problem,
but he can't get approval to make the necessary changes.
Kryvich
> We're definitely considering something like that.
Great!
I.P. Nichols
AFAIK JK is the person responsible for the websites and I'm interested to
know who in the CG organization Rick classifies as PHBs, are they real
people with names. How high up in the orgainzation does one need look to
find these PHBs who are the source of problems.
Rick Carter
>AFAIK JK is the person responsible for the websites and I'm interested to
>know who in the CG organization Rick classifies as PHBs, are they real
>people with names. How high up in the orgainzation does one need look to
>find these PHBs who are the source of problems.
I suppose they are as real as you or me, but I don't have names to name.
I have no inside information.
What I do know is when John Kaster, and later Nick Hodges, wanted to post
a roadmap, they needed to wait for approvals from others in the organization,
including financial and legal people.
It's only my guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a revised
roadmap already prepared, which can't be published yet because it's waiting
for signoffs from some executives.
Not exactly related, but when Nick Hodges told us months ago that the only
way someone could "downgrade" SA from Enterprise to Pro was by agreeing to
destroy the physical media for the existing Enterprise product (not Nick's
idea, I'm sure, but the only answer he was allowed to give), my strong
suspicion was that, even after the split with Borland, CG still has some
PHBs at the top who don't understand developers and don't always make
decisions which favor developers.
I.P. Nichols
>
> ...even after the split with Borland, CG still has some
> PHBs at the top who don't understand developers and don't always make
> decisions which favor developers.
That's understandable when one considers that management's primary
responsibility is to the shareholders. Should executives be labeled PHBs for
acting responsible when some misunderstood developer thinks he knows best?
;-)
Tim Del Chiaro (CodeGear)
week. The new rev will have the updated product information like the data
sheets, feature matrices, FAQ and comparison grid that are already available
on www.codegear.com/products/turbo plus some other various updates.
The next rev of the Delphi/C++Builder/RAD Studio roadmap is with management
for approval. Nick is pushing to get it approved and published ASAP.
Tim
"Rick Carter" <cart...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:47e30a5c$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> John wrote:
...
> All me have to do today is look at the current state of the
> www.turboexplorer.com website, or the current state of the Roadmap (where
> it talks about Highlander as if it were yet to be released) to see that
> there are still plenty of places where CodeGear goes out of their way to
> confuse customers.
...
Brad White
> An updated www.turboexplorer.com web site should be live within the next
> week. The new rev will have the updated product information like the data
> sheets, feature matrices, FAQ and comparison grid that are already available
> on www.codegear.com/products/turbo plus some other various updates.
>
> The next rev of the Delphi/C++Builder/RAD Studio roadmap is with management
> for approval. Nick is pushing to get it approved and published ASAP.
>
woohoo!
Robin Martain
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
Not going to be a "must have" on anyone's hit parade.
I would rather CodeGear offer a free version that can do ACTUAL
development than a low cost, practically useless version. Sure, it may
help CodeGear's bottom line in the short term, but I think it will hurt
in the long run.
Reason? What would stop any new comer to pay for a version that offered
more features with such a lack luster performer in the low cost arena? I
am afraid the evaluation of the product would be based on the low cost
"stripped" version.
If you check most other solution providers that promo type idea has been
abandoned. There is a reason for that.
A model that many companies are providing (Oracle, IBM, etc), is the
free to develop, but pay to deploy model, or trial versions. Of course
CG is doing the trials. They used to offer a free to use, pay for
deployment model as well (short lived, so may not have worked for them).
Turbos are Ok, but they need to offer real world type functionality (old
Turbos did), not cripple a version with lackluster feature sets.
Kryvich
>> CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
>> May be just compiler+debugger+IDE without any advanced features?
>>
>>
> Really do not understand this one. A for sale IDE without any features?
> Not going to be a "must have" on anyone's hit parade.
When I wrote "advanced features" I thought of such things as
- Model driven development,
- Oracle, MS SQL, Interbase, MySQL drivers,
- Advanced refactorings (extract method/interface/superclass, pull
members up/down etc.),
- Build-in clients for a team development,
- Build-in i18n support (Translation manager/editor/repository),
- Build-in Delphi for Web & AJAX support,
- Remote/Web app debuggers,
- Project groups,
- something else...?
But a developer should have a possibility to add additional
components, DB drivers and IDE wizards (developed by third parties
or by CodeGear itself) when he/she really need it.
I think such version would be useful to occupational and shareware
developers. This tool would fill a hole between the free Explorer
and the $874 Pro version.
> I would rather CodeGear offer a free version that can do ACTUAL
> development than a low cost, practically useless version. Sure, it may
> help CodeGear's bottom line in the short term, but I think it will hurt
> in the long run.
If CodeGear can give us such version as I've described above for
free - it will be great!
JMA
entry level version to be.
===Take the feature matrix (C++ 2007) and remove====
VCL for Web stuff
.NET 2.0 headers, .NET interop
Refactoring
Together UML
Integrated Unit Testing
DCOM, COM+, ActiveX (*)
dbExpress, MIDAS/datasnap
Databas Explorer
Blackfish, Interbase
Rave reports, InstallAware, TChart
XML/SOAP, Websnap
(*) not stop us from using them but exclude the "helpers"
Make this the CodeGear C++ 2008 Developer edition and
sell it for $199 (or even better $99).
----------
Create a free Turbo with the same features as the
Developer Edition but some limitation(*). But add stuff
like game development support.
(*) I dont know how to limit the turbo, maybe a
"for noncommercial use only". Develop whatever you want but
"if you make money of it you must buy the $99 version."
---------
To sum up:
Turbo C++ 2008, $0, limited in some way, no support except newsgroup
CodeGear C++ (supported)
Developers Edition, $199 ($99), without "advanced" features
Professional Edition, Enterprise Edition, Architect ?
--------
Do the same for Delphi (though .NET should be in all editions).
What you all think ??
/\/\artin
Ray Porter
"Paul Nichols [TeamB]" <pa...@none.com> wrote in message
news:47e73c9c$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Kryvich wrote:
>> Kostya wrote:
>>
>
> Turbos are Ok, but they need to offer real world type functionality (old
> Turbos did), not cripple a version with lackluster feature sets.
I agree that a fee or low cost SKU with no features is not a good thing.
However, I think a good compromise can be found between functionality and
price. For example:
Free - single personality, no third-party components can be installed in the
IDE and possibly no VCL source code
$399.95 ($149.95 upgrade from previous paid version, $299.95 upgrade from
free SKU) - single personality, fully functional and equivalent to the PRO
Studio SKU but only one language, full VCL source
$1095 ($399.95 upgrade from previous paid version, $499.95 from free SKU) -
RAD Studio Pro
$1999.95 ($699.95 upgrade from previous paid version, $999.95 from free
SKU) - RAD Studio Enterprise
I'm not convinced the Architect SKU really adds that much but if CodeGear
thinks it's a good investment:
$2495.95 ($999.95 upgrade from previous paid version, $1199.95 from free
sku) - RAD Studio Architect
Academic Editions - Full versions at each SKU for 25% (or less) the full
price, with a modified license that allows the deployment of freeware but no
shareware or other commercial software. The current license wording for the
academic editions makes it pretty much useless and a very poor choice
compared to the MS offerings for students. I understand CG can't match MS's
current giveaway but they should be able to offer the academic community
something affordable and useful.
Either drop Software Assurance or modify it such that the customer is
guaranteed at least one full version upgrade within the same SKU.
Jon Purvis
> Paul Nichols [TeamB] wrote:
>
>>> CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
>>> May be just compiler+debugger+IDE without any advanced features?
>>>
>>>
>> Really do not understand this one. A for sale IDE without any features?
>> Not going to be a "must have" on anyone's hit parade.
>
> When I wrote "advanced features" I thought of such things as
> - Model driven development,
> - Oracle, MS SQL, Interbase, MySQL drivers,
> - Advanced refactorings (extract method/interface/superclass, pull
> members up/down etc.),
> - Build-in clients for a team development,
> - Build-in i18n support (Translation manager/editor/repository),
> - Build-in Delphi for Web & AJAX support,
> - Remote/Web app debuggers,
> - Project groups,
> - something else...?
I agree with Kryvich on this. I don't need modeling or team tools in
the slightest. These are advanced tools that properly belong at the
enterprise or architect level IMHO. As for refactoring and web tools,
I'm not saying these are useless to me, but they aren't worth enough for
me to be willing to pay a penny for them either. I'm a standard issue
occupational programmer at work at hobby contractor at home. My needs
are less than a full-time programmer. I see plenty of features present -
lack of advanced features is not the same as no features.
--
Jon Purvis
Wildlife Technical Programs Lead
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Austin, TX
Tom van der Vlugt
There should be another lower cost edition of the full blown
(single language) professional products. The target is:
Explorer users who want to build their own components and
add-ons or use freeware (from commercial or open-source) ones.
The license should be so that deploying commercial code is
prohibited (no shareware, no trialware, no payware). Deployment
of open-source (no matter under which license the product gets
distributed as long it's non-commercial).
A single language professional SKU should be cheaper than the
full blown multi language SKU. The difference between the
Explorer (free) version and the Professional (paid) single
SKU should be only a license file!
This version might be called Home Edition and it's
capabilities are exactly the same as the professional edition,
but the license is (much) different.
An example of such a license is Microsoft's Office 2007 Home
and Student Edition, which is nearly as extended as the
Office 2007 Standard Edition. But it's price is much lower and
the license is totally different in deployment. Microsoft
Office is also a development environment, since it has VBA for
extending the software and therefore comparable with any other
developing system. Thanks to VBA nearly everything is
possible to extend Excel, Word or Powerpoint!
Another advantage should be less piracy. Because of the lower
price piracy will be less attractive, since more people get
ready to pay for the license!
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
Certainly a "FREE" version should not give away the farm. Otherwise, why
pruchase the livestovck seperately? :)
"Jon Purvis" <jon.p...@tpwd.state.tx.us> wrote in message
news:47e8105a$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Kryvich wrote:
>> Paul Nichols [TeamB] wrote:
>>
>> When I wrote "advanced features" I thought of such things as
>> - Model driven development,
>> - Oracle, MS SQL, Interbase, MySQL drivers,
> --
Markus.Humm
great!
Greetings
Markus
Markus.Humm
Greetings
Markus
Bruce McGee
> Please for non US or english people: what are PHBs?
Pointy Haired Bosses. It's a reference to Dilbert's manager.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Carl Caulkett
Markus.Humm
ah, should have known that. I know Dilbert...
Greetings
Markus
Brad White
> Hello,
>
> ah, should have known that. I know Dilbert...
>
PHB with PTB. That can really confuse a
conversation. 8:-)
Brad.
L
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
>> Tim Del Chiaro of CodeGear has said:
>>
>>> The plan for the Turbo 2008s is to have them be the base level free
>>> editions in the Delphi 2008 and C++Builder 2008 product lines and
>>> less focus on Turbo as a brand.
>>
>> Just wanted to bring this welcome clarification to the attention of a
>> wider audience than the "retirement" thread followers.
>>
>> :)
>
>
> I think that's actually a great plan.
> This way people can educate themselves how
> to use Delphi, work with code examples from the internet or a book,
> and if they want more they can purchase the full version.
> That is some good news.
Well, or they can start off with FPC and migrate to delphi (or use both
side by side as many do)
L
Considering that the shareholders are making money from developers
whipping out their credit cards and developer companies whipping out
their credit cards.. wouldn't it be right to say that ultimately it
rounds back into a recursive loop.. and that the shareholders don't
matter a sh*t compared to the developers who whip out their credit cards
and fund/make the shareholders their damn money?
L
>>>
>>> Is John Kaster classified as a PHB?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that he is part of the
>> problem, or that he is a counter-example?
>
> AFAIK JK is the person responsible for the websites and I'm interested
> to know who in the CG organization Rick classifies as PHBs, are they
> real people with names. How high up in the orgainzation does one need
> look to find these PHBs who are the source of problems.
If only every programmer was also a manager and there were no "classes"
of people.. oh wait am I describing programmer communism or facism?
Where a company was run by just developers? hah!
L
> anyone's hit parade.
hehehehe
diarrhea storm
L
> Kryvich wrote:
>
>> Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
>>
>>>> CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
>> Oh, not "we" but "you" (they :) )
>
> I can't. I'm not CodeGear.
>
nitpicker
I.P. Nichols
Shareholders elect the BoD who select the the top management and approve
bonuses etc. Developers developers developers is just a mantra that Ballmer
shouts when doing his monkey dance. ;-)
L
> Shareholders elect the BoD who select the the top management and approve
> bonuses etc. Developers developers developers is just a mantra that
> Ballmer shouts when doing his monkey dance. ;-)
>
>
Heh.. I saw that video.. he had sweat dripping on his forehead and
looked as though he was on some odd medication with side effects.. like
say 20 caffeine pills.
It's a video that's available, I suggest people check it out!
Even I quote it..in one of my BEAUTIFUL poems:
http://z505.com/powtils/pink.htm
Developers! Developers! Developers!
Unconditional developer love,
Lovers of beauty favor pink,
Our code beautiful and above.
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> >>>> CodeGear, can we offer a solution for $100-$300?
> > > > Who are "we"? <g>
> >> Oh, not "we" but "you" (they :) )
> >
> > I can't. I'm not CodeGear.
>
> nitpicker
No, that is not nitpciking at all. I am not a CodeGear employee, I am a
dentist with a strong interest in programming, so addressing me when
you mean Codegear is quite beside the point.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"In ancient times they had no statistics so they had to fall back
on lies." -- Stephen Leacock.
L
> so addressing me when
> you mean Codegear is quite beside the point.
>
I am not "you" or the poster you speak of.
See what I mean?
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
>
> > so addressing me when
> > you mean Codegear is quite beside the point.
> >
>
> I am not "you" or the poster you speak of.
And I meant "you" in the general sense.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of
his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full
humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague."
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, EWD340