Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the available documentation. After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first service pack which ought to come pretty soon. Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three categories.
1 Licensing and installation problems. It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
2 Windows Vista problems. Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed out?
3 Universal Translator problems Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the compatibility issues are cleared. Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is Proviewer 8.5. Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
Hi all, Here is a hypothetical question that isn’t so hypothetical anymore. I have a set of products that have been developed in mapbasic and evolved over the last 10 years. There is a massive amount of code (900K mbx) and the products are pretty well accepted for what they do in their niche market. The products are about editing data, maintaining textural data associated with the spatial data, visualising trends and making changes to the textural data based on trends. But lets face, MapBasic sucks at complex dialogs and forms. Recently I had some help developing a VB shell that wraps that code and uses a subset of it to produce a more textural orientated product for an associated group. We used VB/ integrated mapping as that was what we were comfortable with at the time. It works well, but I have an issue that it is held together by glue and sticky tape, and an error raised in the MapBasic code will break it. I now have a few programmers to back me up. They are mainly Java skilled and web skilled (particularly in MapServer). We also have some .NET skills.
We are being asked to expand the functionality of what we do considerably, and increasing will require better form handling. I was hanging my hat on a .NET version of MapInfo Pro. For the last 5 years I have been telling them I will move when MIPro goes to .NET The question is, If someone was going pay to redevelop the whole suite of products, what would we do it in? Java/ MapX? Java Client/ MapExtreme (but they want to be able to work unconnected sometimes) MapGuide? UDig?
Comments welcome please? ------------------------------------------- Robert Crossley Agtrix P/L Australia
Far Southern Queensland Office: Unit 6, 2 Bonanza Drive Billinudgel NSW 2483 AUSTRALIA Postal: PO Box 63 New Brighton 2483
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.20/919 - Release Date: 26/07/2007 9:56 AM
Not leaping to MapInfo's defence but their new licensing scheme brings them into line with other GIS platforms, namely ESRI's ArcGIS. Also I understood that the price comparison is 1 server-based license to 3 standalone licences. Maybe the discrepancy is dependent on which country your copies of MIPro are licenced to?
HTH
Sheila
On 27/07/07, Mats Elfström <mats.elfst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > available documentation. > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > categories.
> 1 Licensing and installation problems. > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
> 2 Windows Vista problems. > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed > out?
> 3 Universal Translator problems > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the > compatibility issues are cleared. > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is > Proviewer 8.5. > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
I installed 9.0 on Win XP and had no problems so far.
Licensing worked without problems. Most vendors do licensing like that today. Let us see how it is handled, in any case as license is per user, one should be allowed to license it on several machines (such as on the desktop and on the laptop).
UT: The "UT" now is built in partly as UT as it was and partly as File / Open Universal Data (where you get the usual FME GUI). If you have FME installed, you can use any of the formats (so I could i.e. open a PostGIS layer, read only of course). FME supports two kind of MapInfo TAB, one based on MiTAB (Open Source) and one based on MFAL (MapInfo File Access Library). I do not see problems with either.
Vista: I had Vista installed on a machine, however I had many problems with all kind of software so that I went back to XP ... Better to wait for SP1 of Vista ...
Mit freundlichem Gruss / Best Regards Flavio Hendry
My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use the Universal Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem to have had MapBasic since the year dot).
On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite common for up to half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me that we are unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round to installing Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in the future when we install and try to activate a licence which is a reinstallation on a rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one has been removed before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB MapInfo that we are installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
Sue Susan D Beetlestone Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS Officer & ALO Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ES
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mats Elfström" <mats.elfst...@gmail.com> To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> Hi All!
> Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > available documentation. > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > categories.
> 1 Licensing and installation problems. > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
> 2 Windows Vista problems. > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed > out?
> 3 Universal Translator problems > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the > compatibility issues are cleared. > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is > Proviewer 8.5. > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
> Regards, Mats.E
----------------------------------------- Cyngor Sir Powys County Council www.powys.gov.uk
Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un arall a dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y Cyngor.
This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not copy, distribute or show the content to anyone but should contact Powys County Council at once.
Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the Council.
According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then use that license again on the new machine.
The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that it states:
"Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, regardless of the number of licenses"
Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how many licenses you have?
James
On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> wrote:
> My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use the Universal > Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem to have had > MapBasic since the year dot).
> On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite common for up > to > half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me that we are > unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
> It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round to > installing > Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in the future > when > we install and try to activate a licence which is a reinstallation on a > rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one has been > removed > before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB MapInfo that we > are > installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
> Sue > Susan D Beetlestone > Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS Officer & ALO > Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council > Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit > Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices > Llandrindod Wells > Powys > LD1 5ES
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mats Elfström" <mats.elfst...@gmail.com> > To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM > Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > Hi All!
> > Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > > available documentation. > > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > > categories.
> > 1 Licensing and installation problems. > > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
> > 2 Windows Vista problems. > > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also > > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during > > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed > > out?
> > 3 Universal Translator problems > > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and > > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is > > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope > > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is > > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> > I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a > > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the > > compatibility issues are cleared. > > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is > > Proviewer 8.5. > > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a > > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is > > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> > How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above > > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
> > Regards, Mats.E
> ----------------------------------------- > Cyngor Sir Powys County Council > www.powys.gov.uk
> Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i > bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys > gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad > ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un arall a > dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
> Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor > Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y > Cyngor.
> This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for > the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged > information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not copy, > distribute or show the content to anyone but should contact Powys > County Council at once.
> Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business > is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the > Council.
Yes - I read that too - but unfortunately because our users are scattered around a large area we seldom get the chance to do the transfer as the users PC has often disappeared long before we are asked to re-install. Our IT people clean up the old PCs.
The bit about 2 licence transfers a year puzzles me too.
----- Original Message ----- From: James Stott To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:05 PM Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
Sue,
According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then use that license again on the new machine.
The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that it states:
"Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, regardless of the number of licenses"
Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how many licenses you have?
James
On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> wrote:
Hello All
My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use the Universal Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem to have had MapBasic since the year dot).
On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite common for up to half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me that we are unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round to installing Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in the future when we install and try to activate a licence which is a reinstallation on a rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one has been removed before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB MapInfo that we are installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
Sue Susan D Beetlestone Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS Officer & ALO Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ES
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mats Elfström" < mats.elfst...@gmail.com> To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> Hi All!
> Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > available documentation. > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > categories.
> 1 Licensing and installation problems. > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
> 2 Windows Vista problems. > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed > out?
> 3 Universal Translator problems > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the > compatibility issues are cleared. > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is > Proviewer 8.5. > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
> Regards, Mats.E
----------------------------------------- Cyngor Sir Powys County Council www.powys.gov.uk
Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un arall a dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y Cyngor.
This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not copy, distribute or show the content to anyone but should contact Powys County Council at once.
Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the Council.
I believe this has been clarified by MapInfo already as follows:
MapInfo will not unreasonably refuse a request to transfer a license to another PC, despite what it might say about 2 changes only. This may or may not mean a call as opposed to just connecting to the server as it is not clear if their system is set up to block any more than two requests.
The purpose of limiting it a little is that if you could transfer without any limit why buy one of the new floating licenses for three times the price.
If you have a laptop and a PC then you can install MapInfo twice on the basis that you are only going to be using one at any one time and thus technically still a single user.
From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sue Beetlestone Sent: 27 July 2007 14:17 To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
Hello James
Yes - I read that too - but unfortunately because our users are scattered around a large area we seldom get the chance to do the transfer as the users PC has often disappeared long before we are asked to re-install. Our IT people clean up the old PCs.
The bit about 2 licence transfers a year puzzles me too.
Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
Sue,
According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then use that license again on the new machine.
The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that it states:
"Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, regardless of the number of licenses"
Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how many licenses you have?
James
On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> wrote:
Hello All
My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use the Universal Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem to have had MapBasic since the year dot).
On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite common for up to half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me that we are unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round to installing Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in the future when we install and try to activate a licence which is a reinstallation on a rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one has been removed before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB MapInfo that we are installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
Sue Susan D Beetlestone Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS Officer & ALO Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ES
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mats Elfström" < mats.elfst...@gmail.com> To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> Hi All!
> Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > available documentation. > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > categories.
> 1 Licensing and installation problems. > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
> 2 Windows Vista problems. > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed > out?
> 3 Universal Translator problems > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the > compatibility issues are cleared. > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is > Proviewer 8.5. > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
> Regards, Mats.E
----------------------------------------- Cyngor Sir Powys County Council www.powys.gov.uk
Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un arall a dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y Cyngor.
This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not copy, distribute or show the content to anyone but should contact Powys County Council at once.
Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the Council.
The only issue we have had so far with 9.0 is the change from date to date/time in the file structure. It is more problematic when using linked DBMS tables it appears. The issue arises primarily when refreshing a linked DBMS table such as a spatialware or standard sql point file. The version stamp on the tab file changes to 900. Older versions of MI Pro or Proviewer cannot access the tab files afterwards. We have used a few workarounds in mapbasic scripts that modify the field to date and version to 300 upon committing. Licensing was not really a problem on our installs. Hope this helps someone. Mike Osbourn
----- Original Message ----- From: Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> Date: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:18 am Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com
> Hello James
> Yes - I read that too - but unfortunately because our users are > scattered around a large area we seldom get the chance to do the > transfer as the users PC has often disappeared long before we are > asked to re-install. Our IT people clean up the old PCs.
> The bit about 2 licence transfers a year puzzles me too.
> Sue > ----- Original Message ----- > From: James Stott > To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:05 PM > Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> Sue,
> According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo > (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' > your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then > puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then > use that license again on the new machine.
> The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that > it states:
> "Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, > regardless of the number of licenses"
> Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how > many licenses you have?
> James
> On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> > wrote:
> Hello All
> My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use > the Universal > Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem > to have had > MapBasic since the year dot).
> On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite > common for up to > half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me > that we are > unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
> It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round > to installing > Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in > the future when > we install and try to activate a licence which is a > reinstallation on a > rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one > has been removed > before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB > MapInfo that we are > installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
> Sue > Susan D Beetlestone > Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS > Officer & ALO > Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council > Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit > Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices > Llandrindod Wells > Powys > LD1 5ES
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mats Elfström" < mats.elfst...@gmail.com> > To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM > Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > Hi All!
> > Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to > look at the > > available documentation. > > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for > the first > > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall > into three > > categories.
> > 1 Licensing and installation problems. > > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing > scheme, and that > > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note > that the > > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone > licenses.
> > 2 Windows Vista problems. > > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are > also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was > available during > > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have > been ironed > > out?
> > 3 Universal Translator problems > > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB > Mapinfo and > > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their > software is > > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 > but hope > > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. > It is > > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> > I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 > less than a > > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it > until the > > compatibility issues are cleared. > > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get > is > > Proviewer 8.5. > > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 > is a > > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, > maybe that is > > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> > How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is > the above > > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an > upgrade? > > > Regards, Mats.E
> ----------------------------------------- > Cyngor Sir Powys County Council > www.powys.gov.uk
> Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i > bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys > gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad > ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un > arall a > dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
> Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor > Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y > Cyngor.
> This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended > for > the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged > information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not > copy, distribute or show the content to anyone but should > contact Powys > County Council at once.
> Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business > is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the > Council.
* Cost of concurrent licenses v single use CMC International advertised these prices on this list june 18 MapInfo Professional 9.0 Single User $1,098.00 MapInfo Professional 9.0 Concurrent User $3,999.00
which is 3.64 times the price and closer to four times than to three. OK so I rounded the estimate upwards perhaps too much. But on those figures. I haven't seen any other price lists.
* Licensing policies. I think t's a question of attitude, from the software vendor to their customers. Bentley Systems who make MicroStation have recently introduced a system they call trust licensing. I quote from a white paper on the subject: "Bentley, like most software vendors, is serious about improving the process of protecting against the loss of its own intellectual property. Just as importantly, though, Bentley is serious about protecting against the loss of its own users' ability and right to access their own intellectual property: their design data /.../ Bentley's focus for license management with SELECT Server XM Edition is liberation rather than restriction."
In short, this means that the license server always issues a license, even if the usage temporarlily exceeds the number of owned licenses. This enables the users to always have access to critical software on a trust basis. Just as we trust MapInfo by buying their software, they should trust our use of it.
And it seems correct that the licensing problems depend more on Windows Vista than on MapInfo, but it is MapInfos responsibility to ensure that their software works on all certified platforms (or perhaps version 9 isn't Vista certified?)
* UT woes I should have been more specific: the worst problem still persists, that swedish indexed tab files cannot be translated. But it has been claimed that the MITAB libraries do work better. Maybe we should ask Safe Software to compile a UT version on those libraries for us swedes?
> The only issue we have had so far with 9.0 is the change from date to > date/time in the file structure. It is more problematic when using linked > DBMS tables it appears.
> The issue arises primarily when refreshing a linked DBMS table such as a > spatialware or standard sql point file. The version stamp on the tab file > changes to 900. Older versions of MI Pro or Proviewer cannot access the tab > files afterwards.
> We have used a few workarounds in mapbasic scripts that modify the field to > date and version to 300 upon committing.
> Licensing was not really a problem on our installs.
> Hope this helps someone.
> Mike Osbourn
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> > Date: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:18 am > Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading > To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com
> > Hello James
> > Yes - I read that too - but unfortunately because our users are > > scattered around a large area we seldom get the chance to do the > > transfer as the users PC has often disappeared long before we are > > asked to re-install. Our IT people clean up the old PCs.
> > The bit about 2 licence transfers a year puzzles me too.
> > Sue > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: James Stott > > To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:05 PM > > Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > Sue,
> > According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo > > (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' > > your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then > > puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then > > use that license again on the new machine.
> > The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that > > it states:
> > "Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, > > regardless of the number of licenses"
> > Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how > > many licenses you have?
> > James
> > On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> > > wrote:
> > Hello All
> > My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use > > the Universal > > Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem > > to have had > > MapBasic since the year dot).
> > On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite > > common for up to > > half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me > > that we are > > unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
> > It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round > > to installing > > Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in > > the future when > > we install and try to activate a licence which is a > > reinstallation on a > > rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one > > has been removed > > before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB > > MapInfo that we are > > installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
> > Sue > > Susan D Beetlestone > > Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS > > Officer & ALO > > Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council > > Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit > > Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices > > Llandrindod Wells > > Powys > > LD1 5ES
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mats Elfström" < mats.elfst...@gmail.com> > > To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM > > Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > > Hi All!
> > > Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to > > look at the > > > available documentation. > > > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for > > the first > > > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > > > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall > > into three > > > categories.
> > > 1 Licensing and installation problems. > > > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing > > scheme, and that > > > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > > > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > > > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note > > that the > > > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone > > licenses.
> > > 2 Windows Vista problems. > > > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are > > also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was > > available during > > > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have > > been ironed > > > out?
> > > 3 Universal Translator problems > > > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > > > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB > > Mapinfo and > > > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their > > software is > > > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 > > but hope > > > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. > > It is > > > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> > > I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 > > less than a > > > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it > > until the > > > compatibility issues are cleared. > > > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > > > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get > > is > > > Proviewer 8.5. > > > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 > > is a > > > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, > > maybe that is > > > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> > > How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is > > the above > > > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an > > upgrade? > > > > Regards, Mats.E
> > ----------------------------------------- > > Cyngor Sir Powys County Council > > www.powys.gov.uk
> > Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i > > bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys > > gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad > > ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un > > arall a > > dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
> > Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor > > Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y > > Cyngor.
> > This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended > > for > > the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged > > information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not > > copy, distribute or show the content to anyone but should > > contact Powys > > County Council at once.
> > Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business > > is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the > > Council.
mats, agreed that mitab is better, I always use mitab to write when using FME. our experiance is that mfal is often outdated. i.e. we had problems with swiss projection in the past. but isn't sweden=switzerland to americans ;-) ............
Mit freundlichem Gruss / Best Regards Flavio Hendry
robert crossley wrote: > We are being asked to expand the functionality of what we do considerably, > and increasing will require better form handling. > I was hanging my hat on a .NET version of MapInfo Pro. For the last 5 years > I have been telling them I will move when MIPro goes to .NET > The question is, If someone was going pay to redevelop the whole suite of > products, what would we do it in? > Java/ MapX? > Java Client/ MapExtreme (but they want to be able to work unconnected > sometimes) > MapGuide? > UDig?
> Comments welcome please?
Asking what language and tools one would use to develop their next generation of spatially-enabled applications is begging for lots of biased opinion, but I've been looking down this road too. I expect that MapBasic will be with us for the foreseeable future, so I plan to continue to use it and MapInfo for developing desktop applications.
But the siren call of Internet is making me look hard at the future, and that's not going to be MapBasic. So I've tried C# and MapXtreme and that's not bad, but to deploy applications based on this over the Internet is expensive, so it's a viable options for only for the largest applications. In fact, I've been sort of appalled at the prices of software licenses and their restrictive conditions, so I'm exploring the Open Source alternatives.
I've set up a collection of tools based on MapServer (map display) and PostgerSQL with the PostGIS and GEOS extensions (for spatially-enabled database management), into which I've included support libraries GDAL, OGR and MITAB (for GIS file conversion and MapInfo TAB support) and PROJ4 (for map projection support). For languages, I'm experimenting with PHP mapscript, Perl (PL/pgSQL, PostgreSQL's scripting language), and javascript.
It may seem like a lot to get a grip on, but all this does pretty much work well together, and to do all the things I might want to do, I need software that can do a lot. I'm finding that MapServer and PostgreSQL seem to be as good as MapXtreme and Oracle or SQL Server, and certainly better than ArcIMS, and they don't cost me a penny for licensing and there's no restrictions on deploying applications using them (except for conditions set by the Open Source GPL license).
The one weak area I see is in support for building a good user interface. Writing web-based forms in HTML is a real pain, and the selection of web form controls is limited (noticeably absent are database grids), and there's a lack of control event triggers. Probably all fixable with some javascript, but that's not in my skill set yet.
But I'm still on the learning curve, and working on a pilot for a large application, so the jury's still out, but so far this route looks pretty viable. It's also interesting to see who's showing up on the MAPSERVER_USERS and PostGIS mailing lists -- I see a lot of familiar MapInfo-L names!
Have to through my 2¢ worth in as an individual license holder, who purchased his initial license, and concurrent upgrades out of his own pocket without any compensation or reimbursement from his employer or anyone else.
The prices are already stiff for me, and the sole reason I don't keep up with every single upgrade that comes out. In recent years, the bug fixes and new features haven't warranted the high cost of upgraded.
Furthermore, purchasing my own license, I have no intention, nor desire, no way-no how, of letting a "buddy have a copy". I've made several people mad over the years because I wouldn't "burn them a copy of my mapping software". HELL!!! I have a hard enough time paying for it myself, darned if I'm gonna burn copys for "buddys"!!!
I still give PBMI benefit of the doubt, I'm sure they could understand, it would be easy for someone who uses Mapinfo such as I may have a number of occasions in one year to have to reinstall. In the past 12 months, I've installed or reinstalled 3 times, one after a serous crash, one on a new PC, the most recently after a hard drive failure I attribute to using my laptop in a vehicle day in and day out. Let's not forget installing it on a hard drive you have Windows 2000 running on, installed on another hard drive running XP, there's a total of five installs in a 12 month span for the single individual and on only two different machines, the privous one taken out of service!
I'm hoping and planning on upgrading to 9 by or before September, should this license issue be as bad as everyone is elluding to, it will be my last upgrade. I'm not made out of money, and have yet to find a nursery what sells money trees!
-----Original Message----- From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Mats Elfström Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:59 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
Hi All!
What a nice debate. Let me add a few notes:
* Cost of concurrent licenses v single use CMC International advertised these prices on this list june 18 MapInfo Professional 9.0 Single User $1,098.00 MapInfo Professional 9.0 Concurrent User $3,999.00
which is 3.64 times the price and closer to four times than to three. OK so I rounded the estimate upwards perhaps too much. But on those figures. I haven't seen any other price lists.
* Licensing policies. I think t's a question of attitude, from the software vendor to their customers. Bentley Systems who make MicroStation have recently introduced a system they call trust licensing. I quote from a white paper on the subject: "Bentley, like most software vendors, is serious about improving the process of protecting against the loss of its own intellectual property. Just as importantly, though, Bentley is serious about protecting against the loss of its own users' ability and right to access their own intellectual property: their design data /.../ Bentley's focus for license management with SELECT Server XM Edition is liberation rather than restriction."
In short, this means that the license server always issues a license, even if the usage temporarlily exceeds the number of owned licenses. This enables the users to always have access to critical software on a trust basis. Just as we trust MapInfo by buying their software, they should trust our use of it.
And it seems correct that the licensing problems depend more on Windows Vista than on MapInfo, but it is MapInfos responsibility to ensure that their software works on all certified platforms (or perhaps version 9 isn't Vista certified?)
* UT woes I should have been more specific: the worst problem still persists, that swedish indexed tab files cannot be translated. But it has been claimed that the MITAB libraries do work better. Maybe we should ask Safe Software to compile a UT version on those libraries for us swedes?
> The only issue we have had so far with 9.0 is the change from date to > date/time in the file structure. It is more problematic when using > linked DBMS tables it appears.
> The issue arises primarily when refreshing a linked DBMS table such as > a spatialware or standard sql point file. The version stamp on the tab > file changes to 900. Older versions of MI Pro or Proviewer cannot > access the tab files afterwards.
> We have used a few workarounds in mapbasic scripts that modify the > field to date and version to 300 upon committing.
> Licensing was not really a problem on our installs.
> Hope this helps someone.
> Mike Osbourn
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> > Date: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:18 am > Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading > To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com
> > Hello James
> > Yes - I read that too - but unfortunately because our users are > > scattered around a large area we seldom get the chance to do the > > transfer as the users PC has often disappeared long before we are > > asked to re-install. Our IT people clean up the old PCs.
> > The bit about 2 licence transfers a year puzzles me too.
> > Sue > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: James Stott > > To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:05 PM > > Subject: [MI-L] Re: MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > Sue,
> > According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo > > (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' > > your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then > > puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then > > use that license again on the new machine.
> > The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that it > > states:
> > "Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, > > regardless of the number of licenses"
> > Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how many > > licenses you have?
> > James
> > On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> > > wrote:
> > Hello All
> > My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use the > > Universal > > Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem > > to have had > > MapBasic since the year dot).
> > On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite common > > for up to half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to > > me that we are unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
> > It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round to > > installing Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty > > in the future when we install and try to activate a licence which is > > a reinstallation on a rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC > > and the old one has been removed before we have chance to uninstall. > > It may appear to PB MapInfo that we are installing a greater number > > of licences than we actually hold!
> > Sue > > Susan D Beetlestone > > Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS > > Officer & ALO > > Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council Uned Ymchwil a > > Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St > > John's Offices Llandrindod Wells Powys > > LD1 5ES
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mats Elfström" < mats.elfst...@gmail.com> > > To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM > > Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > > Hi All!
> > > Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to > > look at the > > > available documentation. > > > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for > > the first > > > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > > > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall > > into three > > > categories.
> > > 1 Licensing and installation problems. > > > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing > > scheme, and that > > > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > > > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > > > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note > > that the > > > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone > > licenses.
> > > 2 Windows Vista problems. > > > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are > > also > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was > > available during > > > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have > > been ironed > > > out?
> > > 3 Universal Translator problems > > > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > > > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB > > Mapinfo and > > > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their > > software is > > > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 > > but hope > > > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. > > It is > > > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> > > I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 > > less than a > > > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it > > until the > > > compatibility issues are cleared. > > > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > > > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get > > is > > > Proviewer 8.5. > > > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 > > is a > > > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, > > maybe that is > > > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> > > How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is > > the above > > > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an > > upgrade? >
We are doing a lot with that at present with PostGIS and MapServer and are very impressed. They are both very mature projects.
For a client control, take a look at the pmapper project with mapserver (www.pmapper.net). BTW, pmappers live demos don't seem to work on their site, but the references to sites in their gallery do. http://www.pmapper.net/gallery.shtml
I did a google maps like Active X about 6 years ago for one client (using MapServer as a rendering engine and ER Mapper to stream and cache underlying images for speed). With the new security levels imposed by browsers now, you generally have to be quite determined to get a mapping site which uses installed Active X or applets. We have since reproduced this with pmapper (except for the streaming images) which uses no active X or installed applets. PMapper uses pure html and javascript and ajax to give similar performance. It uses PHP on the back end. You can customise its interface and also add your own plug ins as well. And for the really serious, you can edit the core code.
The whole system works really well.
I am looking for something to work off line as well as on-line though and mapinfo's ability to work with Oracle or Spatialware and use downloaded data while off-line but then reconciling back to the server is attractive.
-----Original Message----- From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bill Thoen Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2007 2:01 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
robert crossley wrote:
> We are being asked to expand the functionality of what we do considerably,
> and increasing will require better form handling.
> I was hanging my hat on a .NET version of MapInfo Pro. For the last 5 years
> I have been telling them I will move when MIPro goes to .NET
> The question is, If someone was going pay to redevelop the whole suite of
> products, what would we do it in?
> Java/ MapX?
> Java Client/ MapExtreme (but they want to be able to work unconnected
> sometimes)
> MapGuide?
> UDig?
> Comments welcome please?
Asking what language and tools one would use to develop their next
generation of spatially-enabled applications is begging for lots of
biased opinion, but I've been looking down this road too. I expect that
MapBasic will be with us for the foreseeable future, so I plan to
continue to use it and MapInfo for developing desktop applications.
But the siren call of Internet is making me look hard at the future, and
that's not going to be MapBasic. So I've tried C# and MapXtreme and
that's not bad, but to deploy applications based on this over the
Internet is expensive, so it's a viable options for only for the largest
applications. In fact, I've been sort of appalled at the prices of
software licenses and their restrictive conditions, so I'm exploring the
Open Source alternatives.
I've set up a collection of tools based on MapServer (map display) and
PostgerSQL with the PostGIS and GEOS extensions (for spatially-enabled
database management), into which I've included support libraries GDAL,
OGR and MITAB (for GIS file conversion and MapInfo TAB support) and
PROJ4 (for map projection support). For languages, I'm experimenting
with PHP mapscript, Perl (PL/pgSQL, PostgreSQL's scripting language),
and javascript.
It may seem like a lot to get a grip on, but all this does pretty much
work well together, and to do all the things I might want to do, I need
software that can do a lot. I'm finding that MapServer and PostgreSQL
seem to be as good as MapXtreme and Oracle or SQL Server, and certainly
better than ArcIMS, and they don't cost me a penny for licensing and
there's no restrictions on deploying applications using them (except for
conditions set by the Open Source GPL license).
The one weak area I see is in support for building a good user
interface. Writing web-based forms in HTML is a real pain, and the
selection of web form controls is limited (noticeably absent are
database grids), and there's a lack of control event triggers. Probably
all fixable with some javascript, but that's not in my skill set yet.
But I'm still on the learning curve, and working on a pilot for a large
application, so the jury's still out, but so far this route looks pretty
viable. It's also interesting to see who's showing up on the
MAPSERVER_USERS and PostGIS mailing lists -- I see a lot of familiar
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date: 27/07/2007 6:08 AM
> I am looking for something to work off line as well as on-line though > and mapinfo's ability to work with Oracle or Spatialware and use > downloaded data while off-line but then reconciling back to the server > is attractive.
Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as fast as a local machine can be.)
"According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo (because you rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' your license to MapInfo before you remove the software. This then puts the license back on MapInfos license server and you can then use that license again on the new machine."
So how would that work when a machne has had a hard disk crash ?? Are we supposed to uninstall the software just before the disk fails?
Can't say I'm impressed by version 9 at all so far, if anything I'm more and more persuaded that this upgrade is more of a downgrade. Loss of backward compatability, increased price, more restrictive licencing, sonds like a recipe to alienate customers, not attract them.
Mr Grumpy. (Gentreau)
On Jul 27, 3:05 pm, "James Stott" <jamessto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to the manual, if you need to transfer MapInfo (because you > rebuild or get a new machine) you should 'transfer' your license to MapInfo > before you remove the software. This then puts the license back on MapInfos > license server and you can then use that license again on the new machine.
> The one thing from the manual that I have a query about is that it states:
> "Your organization is limited to two license transfers per year, regardless > of the number of licenses"
> Does this mean you can only do this process twice no matter how many > licenses you have?
> James
> On 27/07/07, Sue Beetlestone <sue.beetlest...@powys.gov.uk> wrote:
> > Hello All
> > My chief concerns are about Mats' first point (We seldom use the Universal > > Translator, Vista seems unlikely to happen for us and we seem to have had > > MapBasic since the year dot).
> > On concurrency - we have over 300 licences and it is quite common for up > > to > > half of them to be in use at the same time so it seems to me that we are > > unlikely to want to go down that route at present.
> > It was only yesterday that (having been on leave) I got round to > > installing > > Version 9. I am wondering whether we may have difficulty in the future > > when > > we install and try to activate a licence which is a reinstallation on a > > rebuilt PC - or where the user has a new PC and the old one has been > > removed > > before we have chance to uninstall. It may appear to PB MapInfo that we > > are > > installing a greater number of licences than we actually hold!
> > Sue > > Susan D Beetlestone > > Uwch Swyddog GIS Corfforaethol ac ALO/Senior Corporate GIS Officer & ALO > > Cyngor Sir Powys/Powys County Council > > Uned Ymchwil a Gwybodaeth/Research & Information Unit > > Swyddfeydd Sant Ioan/St John's Offices > > Llandrindod Wells > > Powys > > LD1 5ES
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mats Elfström" <mats.elfst...@gmail.com> > > To: <mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:15 AM > > Subject: [MI-L] MI Pro 9 release notes - ominous reading
> > > Hi All!
> > > Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > > > available documentation. > > > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > > > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > > > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > > > categories.
> > > 1 Licensing and installation problems. > > > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > > > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > > > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > > > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > > > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
> > > 2 Windows Vista problems. > > > Some installation problems seems Vista-related but there are also > > > other Vista-related issues. Surely Windows Vista was available during > > > the beta phase of MI Pro 9, so that these bugs could have been ironed > > > out?
> > > 3 Universal Translator problems > > > Again, these problems seems to be related to Safe Software using > > > outdated MI libraries for the MapInfo flavor of FME. PB Mapinfo and > > > Safe Software needs to get together on this, so that their software is > > > synchronized. I do not know how the GUI for UT looks in v9 but hope > > > for a more modern interface than in 8.5 and older versions. It is > > > still like Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.
> > > I have of course downloaded MB 9 (sour - I bought MB 8.5 less than a > > > year ago and paid full price) but will postpone use of it until the > > > compatibility issues are cleared. > > > Then I went to look for Proviewer 9, which appears to be up for > > > download on the MI homepage. But that is bogus, what you get is > > > Proviewer 8.5. > > > Funny thing though, it says that MapInfo Professional v9.0 is a > > > requirement for downloading PV 9. As I don't have that, maybe that is > > > why I get PV 8.5 instead ( I have MI Pro 8.5).
> > > How about you early adopters who run MI Pro 9 already - is the above > > > of minor consequence, or sufficient reason for postponing an upgrade?
> > > Regards, Mats.E
> > ----------------------------------------- > > Cyngor Sir Powys County Council > >www.powys.gov.uk
> > Mae'r e bost hwn ac unrhyw atodiad iddo yn gyfrinachol ac fe'i > > bwriedir ar gyfer y sawl a enwir arno yn unig. Gall gynnwys > > gwybodaeth freintiedig. Os yw wedi eich cyrraedd trwy gamgymeriad > > ni ellwch ei gopio, ei ddosbarthu na'i ddangos i unrhyw un arall a > > dylech gysylltu gyda Cyngor Sir Powys ar unwaith.
> > Mae unrhyw gynnwys nad yw'n ymwneud gyda busnes swyddogol Cyngor > > Sir Powys yn bersonol i'r awdur ac nid yw'n awdurdodedig gan y > > Cyngor.
> > This e mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for > > the named recipient only. The content may contain privileged > > information. If it has reached you by mistake, you should not copy, > > distribute or show the content to anyone but should contact Powys > > County Council at once.
> > Any content that is not pertinent to Powys County Council business > > is personal to the author, and is not necessarily the view of the > > Council.- Hide quoted text -
> Mats.E > Hi All! > Looking forward to the delivery of version 9, I decided to look at the > available documentation. > After having read the release notes, I think I will wait for the first > service pack which ought to come pretty soon. > Im my view, the reported known problems of version 9 fall into three > categories. > 1 Licensing and installation problems. > It seems that PB Mapinfo have adapted a new licensing scheme, and that > this causes a number of problems. This is counter-productive and > user-unfriendly, and uncalled for. > However, concurrent licensing seemed interesting. But note that the > cost for _one_ concurrent license equals _four_ standalone licenses.
I work for an organisation of 4000 employees, of which approximately 800 have MapInfo installed.
Naturally, we have a firewall controlling access to the internet.
MapInfo 9 cannot get through the firewall to access the liscence server.
nick
*********************************************************************** WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this e-mail without appropriate authority.
If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not waived or destroyed by that mistake.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system).
Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. ***********************************************************************
This hypothetical question is no longer hypothetical, so we are investigating options fo redveloping a large MapBasic program into a better programming environment.
So, for the development of our existing MapBasic apps, we are leaning towards the idea of a .NET thick client application that incorporates fairly sophisticated GIS functionailty. The funding clients are microsoft ortientated and already have invested in Spatialware. A mapinfo based solution would be most appropriate.
MapExtreme obviously needs to be investigated. I have heard that the pricing regime for MapExtreme is fairly extreme. Is this correct? This industry has already invested a fair amount into MapInfo. A number of clients will reject moving to the new system if the set up cost is too high.
Any stories to relate on its applicability to develop desktop applications that will enable spatial object editing and manipulation, high quality map production, or ability to work disconnected from a server and reconcile with Spatial databases like Spatialware or Oracle (as MIPro can).
In answer to Bill's comment:
Bill thoen said:
>Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on >those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it >looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as >fast as a local machine can be.)
Bill, we are in fact looking at this option for certain applications, but only where we are supplying a purpose configured computer.
I think the idea of using this as an alternative to a GIS app may be impractical in most situations as (1) can you imagine telling an IT department that you must install appache, php etc etc on individual desktops to run our mapping app? (we can't even get some of them to install java Runtime), and (2) web apps on the main part do not allow snapping and selection interactivity that you need for good editing interaction. You would have to write all of that stuff yourself.
We are, however, investigating this option for a vehicle mounted touch screen device that has been built and configured for the sole purpose of running a simple GIS enabled app. The current thread on GPS for PDA's is interesting for me as well. MapServer has the advantage of integrating well with PostGIS, and thus has the potential for using database reconciliation to reconcile data with a central server. It may come to nothing though.
-----Original Message----- From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bill Thoen Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2007 8:30 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
robert crossley wrote:
> I am looking for something to work off line as well as on-line though
> and mapinfo's ability to work with Oracle or Spatialware and use
> downloaded data while off-line but then reconciling back to the server
> is attractive.
Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on
those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it
looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 30/07/2007 5:02 PM
One other option is worth considering. The main reason we want to move off Mapbasic is the poor dialogs available (no control arrays, no programatical manipulation of controls, difficult event handling).
How difficult would it to continue with a MapBasic app, and use something like .NET to create forms that the base data is provided from MapInfo, and the results passed back to MI. Perhaps even while the dialog is open?
We could then continue to use the MapBasic code for stuff like map production (does MapExtreme have a layout object?)
From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of robert crossley Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 1:13 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
Hi all,
This hypothetical question is no longer hypothetical, so we are investigating options fo redveloping a large MapBasic program into a better programming environment.
So, for the development of our existing MapBasic apps, we are leaning towards the idea of a .NET thick client application that incorporates fairly sophisticated GIS functionailty. The funding clients are microsoft ortientated and already have invested in Spatialware. A mapinfo based solution would be most appropriate.
MapExtreme obviously needs to be investigated. I have heard that the pricing regime for MapExtreme is fairly extreme. Is this correct? This industry has already invested a fair amount into MapInfo. A number of clients will reject moving to the new system if the set up cost is too high.
Any stories to relate on its applicability to develop desktop applications that will enable spatial object editing and manipulation, high quality map production, or ability to work disconnected from a server and reconcile with Spatial databases like Spatialware or Oracle (as MIPro can).
In answer to Bill's comment:
Bill thoen said:
>Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on >those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it >looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as >fast as a local machine can be.)
Bill, we are in fact looking at this option for certain applications, but only where we are supplying a purpose configured computer.
I think the idea of using this as an alternative to a GIS app may be impractical in most situations as (1) can you imagine telling an IT department that you must install appache, php etc etc on individual desktops to run our mapping app? (we can't even get some of them to install java Runtime), and (2) web apps on the main part do not allow snapping and selection interactivity that you need for good editing interaction. You would have to write all of that stuff yourself.
We are, however, investigating this option for a vehicle mounted touch screen device that has been built and configured for the sole purpose of running a simple GIS enabled app. The current thread on GPS for PDA's is interesting for me as well. MapServer has the advantage of integrating well with PostGIS, and thus has the potential for using database reconciliation to reconcile data with a central server. It may come to nothing though.
-----Original Message----- From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bill Thoen Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2007 8:30 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
robert crossley wrote:
> I am looking for something to work off line as well as on-line though
> and mapinfo's ability to work with Oracle or Spatialware and use
> downloaded data while off-line but then reconciling back to the server
> is attractive.
Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on
those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it
looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 30/07/2007 5:02 PM
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 30/07/2007 5:02 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 30/07/2007 5:02 PM
Your concerns have been on the minds of many. The stagnation of development and actual improvements to Mapinfo/Mapbasic over the past three versions have really not justified the upgrade or maintenance costs. I have used Mapinfo since Version 3, and Mapbasic since Version 5, and while I am all for stability and backward compatibility, I honestly believe the management at Mapinfo has been resting on their laurels since the introduction of Version 7. If my memory serves me correctly there was a new object model introduced with Version 5.5 or Version 6.0, since then the improvements have been very slow in being introduced.
I truly don't want to compare packages, but I will use this to illustrate what I believe to be the difference between progressive/aggressive companies, and passive/complacent software companies.
I purchased Manifold (Universal) Version 6.0 when it was first released in 2004 for $525.00. It allowed scripting in any language that was supported by Microsoft (VB, VC++, VC#, Java, Perl, ETC..) as well as the development of standalone packages and IMS using its object model. While the object model was not very mature, the package overall had many useful features.
(Universal includes Business tools and Surface tools as well as Geocoding. So you get the functionality of Mapmarker, Vertical Mapper, Spatial Analyst & 3D Analyst all in one package for less than half the cost of the base Mapinfo or ESRI package)
Since 2004 Manifold has released 6.5 & Version 7 as well as numerous service packs or decimal release versions. These upgrades have only cost me $50.00 and that was for the release of 6.5. Version 7 was a free upgrade for users of Version 6.5. With each release there were literally hundreds of new features added, modified, or improved upon. Manifold has also supported 64 bit operating systems since the release of Version 7.xxx It supports Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, natively, as well as numerous other database files. It is difficult to list all of the things that it supports, but the point is, they continually work on improving the product. They are firmly embracing .NET and will be releasing Version 8, probably before the end of the year. I am not saying it is perfect, it still has flaws, and things that I wish it would do better, but I am very impressed with the progress that has been made, and the value of the package. Sometimes a price has to be paid for progress, and in some cases Legacy packages have to fall by the wayside, and I also understand the great deal of effort it takes to make a transition to other Operating systems, development packages, frameworks and the like, but it seems to me that Mapinfo has not made a concerted effort to move forward in any of these areas for the past several releases, and when Project Grande was put on the shelf, I was very disappointed. I don't want to buy another package (MapExtreme) to move into the .NET world with Mapinfo products. I would truly like dialog/form builder tools in Mapbasic, and eventually I would like support for the .NET framework in Mapinfo/Mapbasic, and sooner would be better than later.
I build applications for both Mapinfo and Manifold now, but I am making more progress in C# for the Manifold applications than I am in Mapbasic for Mapinfo. This leaves me with mixed emotions, I have been a very loyal Mapifo/Mapbasic user and supporter in the industry that I work in for the past 14 years, but if I can accomplish more of what I need and want in a package that costs half as much, and get better support, and more features with the less expensive package, wouldn't I be a fool not to put all of my efforts into the other package? Yes, the stability of Mapinfo/Mapbasic is nice, and by stability I mean consistency of the interface, and the evolutionary changes to the object model and development package, but I do feel that more progress should have been made, and many more features should have been introduced over the past few versions.
Just another fool's opinion.
Regards,
Jon Gramm
On 8/2/07, robert crossley <robe...@agtrix.com> wrote:
> One other option is worth considering. The main reason we want to move > off Mapbasic is the poor dialogs available (no control arrays, no > programatical manipulation of controls, difficult event handling).
> How difficult would it to continue with a MapBasic app, and use something > like .NET to create forms that the base data is provided from MapInfo, and > the results passed back to MI. Perhaps even while the dialog is open?
> We could then continue to use the MapBasic code for stuff like map > production (does MapExtreme have a layout object?)
> *From:* mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *robert crossley > *Sent:* Friday, 3 August 2007 1:13 AM > *To:* mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
> Hi all,
> This hypothetical question is no longer hypothetical, so we are > investigating options fo redveloping a large MapBasic program into a better > programming environment.
> So, for the development of our existing MapBasic apps, we are leaning > towards the idea of a .NET thick client application that incorporates fairly > sophisticated GIS functionailty. The funding clients are microsoft > ortientated and already have invested in Spatialware. A mapinfo based > solution would be most appropriate.
> MapExtreme obviously needs to be investigated. I have heard that the > pricing regime for MapExtreme is fairly extreme. Is this correct? This > industry has already invested a fair amount into MapInfo. A number of > clients will reject moving to the new system if the set up cost is too high.
> Any stories to relate on its applicability to develop desktop applications > that will enable spatial object editing and manipulation, high quality map > production, or ability to work disconnected from a server and reconcile with > Spatial databases like Spatialware or Oracle (as MIPro can).
> In answer to Bill's comment:
> Bill thoen said:
> >Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on
> >those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it
> >looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as
> >fast as a local machine can be.)
> Bill, we are in fact looking at this option for certain applications, but > only where we are supplying a purpose configured computer.
> I think the idea of using this as an alternative to a GIS app may be > impractical in most situations as (1) can you imagine telling an IT > department that you must install appache, php etc etc on individual desktops > to run our mapping app? (we can't even get some of them to install java > Runtime), and (2) web apps on the main part do not allow snapping and > selection interactivity that you need for good editing interaction. You > would have to write all of that stuff yourself.
> We are, however, investigating this option for a vehicle mounted touch > screen device that has been built and configured for the sole purpose of > running a simple GIS enabled app. The current thread on GPS for PDA's is > interesting for me as well. MapServer has the advantage of integrating well > with PostGIS, and thus has the potential for using database reconciliation > to reconcile data with a central server. It may come to nothing though.
> R
> -----Original Message----- > From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of Bill Thoen > Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2007 8:30 AM > To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com > Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
> robert crossley wrote:
> > I am looking for something to work off line as well as on-line though
> > and mapinfo's ability to work with Oracle or Spatialware and use
> > downloaded data while off-line but then reconciling back to the server
> > is attractive.
> Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on
> those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost and it
> looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as
Thanks for the detail. Your response strikes a chord with me as I have had a similar involvement with MapInfo. I had been hanging my hat on Project Grande for the last few years as well as my direction forward, and now I have to reevaluate where to go.
I have an added issue in that my application space is agriculture, and none of the features like geocoding mean anything to us. Much of MapInfos functionality developed for business application does give us much additional functionality at all. We are in a space where Arc now competes very well.
Over my time, MapInfo has become a corporate business, and the pimply faced kids I used to work with are now regional managers. Its more nimble low cost competitors are biting at its heels, and they have their evangelists saying look at all you can do with product X for not as much money as MapInfo. That used to be MapInfo's space. ArcInfo still says its better (some things never change), but now they actually have a product that competes directly with MapInfo Pro.
Not only have the products evolved, however, my clients have gone from a few guys using a mapping package to being spatially enabled corporate data managers. Mapping is just part of their business. They are not hick aggies, but their business systems are recognized as cutting edge in the wider business community. Whatever systems we develop now have to work in a corporate environment. MapInfo is very good at that. Perhaps we have to move with them, and so MapExtreme has to be a strong contenter. Then again, maybe we don't. I will look at Manifold again.
From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Gramm Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 9:08 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
Your concerns have been on the minds of many.
The stagnation of development and actual improvements to Mapinfo/Mapbasic over the past three versions have really not justified the upgrade or maintenance costs.
I have used Mapinfo since Version 3, and Mapbasic since Version 5, and while I am all for stability and backward compatibility, I honestly believe the management at Mapinfo has been resting on their laurels since the introduction of Version 7. If my memory serves me correctly there was a new object model introduced with Version 5.5 or Version 6.0, since then the improvements have been very slow in being introduced.
I truly don't want to compare packages, but I will use this to illustrate what I believe to be the difference between progressive/aggressive companies, and passive/complacent software companies.
I purchased Manifold (Universal) Version 6.0 when it was first released in 2004 for $525.00.
It allowed scripting in any language that was supported by Microsoft
(VB, VC++, VC#, Java, Perl, ETC..)
as well as the development of standalone packages and IMS using its object model.
While the object model was not very mature, the package overall had many useful features.
(Universal includes Business tools and Surface tools as well as Geocoding. So you get the functionality of Mapmarker, Vertical Mapper, Spatial Analyst & 3D Analyst all in one package for less than half the cost of the base Mapinfo or ESRI package)
Since 2004 Manifold has released 6.5 & Version 7 as well as numerous service packs or decimal release versions. These upgrades have only cost me $50.00 and that was for the release of 6.5. Version 7 was a free upgrade for users of Version 6.5.
With each release there were literally hundreds of new features added, modified, or improved upon.
Manifold has also supported 64 bit operating systems since the release of Version 7.xxx
It supports Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, natively, as well as numerous other database files.
It is difficult to list all of the things that it supports, but the point is, they continually work on improving the product. They are firmly embracing .NET and will be releasing Version 8, probably before the end of the year.
I am not saying it is perfect, it still has flaws, and things that I wish it would do better, but I am very impressed with the progress that has been made, and the value of the package.
Sometimes a price has to be paid for progress, and in some cases Legacy packages have to fall by the wayside, and I also understand the great deal of effort it takes to make a transition to other Operating systems, development packages, frameworks and the like, but it seems to me that Mapinfo has not made a concerted effort to move forward in any of these areas for the past several releases, and when Project Grande was put on the shelf, I was very disappointed.
I don't want to buy another package (MapExtreme) to move into the .NET world with Mapinfo products.
I would truly like dialog/form builder tools in Mapbasic, and eventually I would like support for the .NET framework in Mapinfo/Mapbasic, and sooner would be better than later.
I build applications for both Mapinfo and Manifold now, but I am making more progress in C# for the Manifold applications than I am in Mapbasic for Mapinfo.
This leaves me with mixed emotions, I have been a very loyal Mapifo/Mapbasic user and supporter in the industry that I work in for the past 14 years, but if I can accomplish more of what I need and want in a package that costs half as much, and get better support, and more features with the less expensive package, wouldn't I be a fool not to put all of my efforts into the other package?
Yes, the stability of Mapinfo/Mapbasic is nice, and by stability I mean consistency of the interface, and the evolutionary changes to the object model and development package, but I do feel that more progress should have been made, and many more features should have been introduced over the past few versions.
One other option is worth considering. The main reason we want to move off Mapbasic is the poor dialogs available (no control arrays, no programatical manipulation of controls, difficult event handling).
How difficult would it to continue with a MapBasic app, and use something like .NET to create forms that the base data is provided from MapInfo, and the results passed back to MI. Perhaps even while the dialog is open?
We could then continue to use the MapBasic code for stuff like map production (does MapExtreme have a layout object?)
From: HYPERLINK "mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com" \nmapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com" \n mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of robert crossley Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 1:13 AM
To: HYPERLINK "mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com" \nmapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
Hi all,
This hypothetical question is no longer hypothetical, so we are investigating options fo redveloping a large MapBasic program into a better programming environment.
So, for the development of our existing MapBasic apps, we are leaning towards the idea of a .NET thick client application that incorporates fairly sophisticated GIS functionailty. The funding clients are microsoft ortientated and already have invested in Spatialware. A mapinfo based solution would be most appropriate.
MapExtreme obviously needs to be investigated. I have heard that the pricing regime for MapExtreme is fairly extreme. Is this correct? This industry has already invested a fair amount into MapInfo. A number of clients will reject moving to the new system if the set up cost is too high.
Any stories to relate on its applicability to develop desktop applications that will enable spatial object editing and manipulation, high quality map production, or ability to work disconnected from a server and reconcile with Spatial databases like Spatialware or Oracle (as MIPro can).
In answer to Bill's comment:
Bill thoen said:
>Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on >those machines? That way you can connect to HYPERLINK "http://localhost/"
>looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as >fast as a local machine can be.)
Bill, we are in fact looking at this option for certain applications, but only where we are supplying a purpose configured computer.
I think the idea of using this as an alternative to a GIS app may be impractical in most situations as (1) can you imagine telling an IT department that you must install appache, php etc etc on individual desktops to run our mapping app? (we can't even get some of them to install java Runtime), and (2) web apps on the main part do not allow snapping
I too have been not been impressed with "the major improvements" in each release of MapInfo ... it certainly does not justify the big upgrade price increases they ask. I remember a few comments on MapInfo-L over the years saying that people are still happy with version 6.5 .....
The new features in version 9.0 can be counted on one-hand, possibly two (depending on what you consider useful or a major improvement)
Earlier this year, I invested in ArcGIS 9.2 and already there have been three service pack releases (with new added features in each). I have already started to create and migrate some clients data across to personal geodatabases. Why? Because for my work, there is much more functionality in the ArcGIS environment.
I also use Encom's Discover and they too have had two major releases in the past year. The latest one (v 9.0, out today) has a whole swag of major useful improvements (at a cheaper annual maintenance fee than MapInfo's) http://web2.encom.com.au/pdfs/DiscoverAdvancesSheet_%209.0.14.pdf
The main reasons I stay with MapInfo is because of:
1) The Discover add-on (for geological-related work).
2) I also am on the maintenance plan so that I can stay current with "the new features" (only because I give one-on-one training in MapInfo and thus have to stay current)
MapInfo Professional needs a good shakeup to bring it into the current century. I've used it for over 13 years, and the interface hasn't changed, and several required improvements (that I've posted on both the wish list and discussed on MapInfo-L) have never eventuated.
Get back to me in a year. I expect to be better skilled with my ArcGIS 9.2 (probably 10 by then) and then may really be leading the charge advising clients to adopt ESRI over MapInfo.
Regards,
Bill
From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Gramm Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 7:08 AM To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
Your concerns have been on the minds of many.
The stagnation of development and actual improvements to Mapinfo/Mapbasic over the past three versions have really not justified the upgrade or maintenance costs.
I have used Mapinfo since Version 3, and Mapbasic since Version 5, and while I am all for stability and backward compatibility, I honestly believe the management at Mapinfo has been resting on their laurels since the introduction of Version 7. If my memory serves me correctly there was a new object model introduced with Version 5.5 or Version 6.0, since then the improvements have been very slow in being introduced.
I truly don't want to compare packages, but I will use this to illustrate what I believe to be the difference between progressive/aggressive companies, and passive/complacent software companies.
I purchased Manifold (Universal) Version 6.0 when it was first released in 2004 for $525.00.
It allowed scripting in any language that was supported by Microsoft
(VB, VC++, VC#, Java, Perl, ETC..)
as well as the development of standalone packages and IMS using its object model.
While the object model was not very mature, the package overall had many useful features.
(Universal includes Business tools and Surface tools as well as Geocoding. So you get the functionality of Mapmarker, Vertical Mapper, Spatial Analyst & 3D Analyst all in one package for less than half the cost of the base Mapinfo or ESRI package)
Since 2004 Manifold has released 6.5 & Version 7 as well as numerous service packs or decimal release versions. These upgrades have only cost me $50.00 and that was for the release of 6.5. Version 7 was a free upgrade for users of Version 6.5.
With each release there were literally hundreds of new features added, modified, or improved upon.
Manifold has also supported 64 bit operating systems since the release of Version 7.xxx
It supports Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, natively, as well as numerous other database files.
It is difficult to list all of the things that it supports, but the point is, they continually work on improving the product. They are firmly embracing .NET and will be releasing Version 8, probably before the end of the year.
I am not saying it is perfect, it still has flaws, and things that I wish it would do better, but I am very impressed with the progress that has been made, and the value of the package.
Sometimes a price has to be paid for progress, and in some cases Legacy packages have to fall by the wayside, and I also understand the great deal of effort it takes to make a transition to other Operating systems, development packages, frameworks and the like, but it seems to me that Mapinfo has not made a concerted effort to move forward in any of these areas for the past several releases, and when Project Grande was put on the shelf, I was very disappointed.
I don't want to buy another package (MapExtreme) to move into the .NET world with Mapinfo products.
I would truly like dialog/form builder tools in Mapbasic, and eventually I would like support for the .NET framework in Mapinfo/Mapbasic, and sooner would be better than later.
I build applications for both Mapinfo and Manifold now, but I am making more progress in C# for the Manifold applications than I am in Mapbasic for Mapinfo.
This leaves me with mixed emotions, I have been a very loyal Mapifo/Mapbasic user and supporter in the industry that I work in for the past 14 years, but if I can accomplish more of what I need and want in a package that costs half as much, and get better support, and more features with the less expensive package, wouldn't I be a fool not to put all of my efforts into the other package?
Yes, the stability of Mapinfo/Mapbasic is nice, and by stability I mean consistency of the interface, and the evolutionary changes to the object model and development package, but I do feel that more progress should have been made, and many more features should have been introduced over the past few versions.
Just another fool's opinion.
Regards,
Jon Gramm
On 8/2/07, robert crossley <robe...@agtrix.com> wrote:
One other option is worth considering. The main reason we want to move off Mapbasic is the poor dialogs available (no control arrays, no programatical manipulation of controls, difficult event handling).
How difficult would it to continue with a MapBasic app, and use something like .NET to create forms that the base data is provided from MapInfo, and the results passed back to MI. Perhaps even while the dialog is open?
We could then continue to use the MapBasic code for stuff like map production (does MapExtreme have a layout object?)
From: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto: <mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of robert crossley Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 1:13 AM
To: mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com <mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com> Subject: [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
Hi all,
This hypothetical question is no longer hypothetical, so we are investigating options fo redveloping a large MapBasic program into a better programming environment.
So, for the development of our existing MapBasic apps, we are leaning towards the idea of a .NET thick client application that incorporates fairly sophisticated GIS functionailty. The funding clients are microsoft ortientated and already have invested in Spatialware. A mapinfo based solution would be most appropriate.
MapExtreme obviously needs to be investigated. I have heard that the pricing regime for MapExtreme is fairly extreme. Is this correct? This industry has already invested a fair amount into MapInfo. A number of clients will reject moving to the new system if the set up cost is too high.
Any stories to relate on its applicability to develop desktop applications that will enable spatial object editing and manipulation, high quality map production, or ability to work disconnected from a server and reconcile with Spatial databases like Spatialware or Oracle (as MIPro can).
In answer to Bill's comment:
Bill thoen said:
>Is it out of the question to load the Apache and MapServer servers on >those machines? That way you can connect to http://localhost
>looks no different than if you were online ('cept the performance is as >fast as a local machine can be.)
Bill, we are in fact looking at this option for certain applications, but only where we are supplying a purpose configured computer.
I think the idea of using this as an alternative to a GIS app may be impractical in most situations as (1) can you imagine telling an IT department that you must install appache, php etc etc on individual desktops to run our mapping app? (we can't even get some of them to install java Runtime), and (2) web apps on the main part do not allow snapping and selection interactivity that you need for good editing interaction. You would have to write all of that stuff yourself.
We are, however, investigating this option for a vehicle mounted touch screen device that has been built and configured for the sole purpose of running a simple GIS enabled app. The current thread on GPS for PDA's is interesting for me as well. MapServer has the advantage of integrating well with PostGIS, and thus has the
I have also explored the ESRI products, and have gotten quite familiar with them since Version 8.
My biggest issues with the ESRI products are Cost, Training, overall productivity, and stability.
I work in a production environment, I produce multiple maps for field work every day, and the amount of data I process in Mapinfo on a daily basis is pretty amazing. It is true that most all of this is automated through Mapbasic routines I have written, but I believe my ability to place this data on a map on a daily basis in Arcmap would be very difficult until I automate the processes.
Most of the companies I work with that use the ESRI products have someone dedicated to maintaining the map and the data on a full time basis. I don't have that luxury, I work in the field during the day, process the data in the evening, and have the maps for the next day ready by the next morning.
I also train others in the use of the Mapping Packages that I have developed, and so far it has not been more than a couple of hours of training, the entry point for Mapinfo is much simpler than it is for the ESRI products. (Simple, Single interface, and so on.) I do not dispute the power of ESRI, nor do I dispute their entrenchment in the GIS industry, but I can accomplish what I need so much faster with fewer limitations in Mapinfo.
So far Manifold takes the middle ground, it is much more powerful than Mapinfo, manages data better than both the ESRI and Mapinfo products, has a simple entry point, but operations are different from both, not in a bad way, but in a way that will have you scratching your head at times. Their support for programming with Visual Studio products and the ability to access a great deal of their object model has encouraged me to expand my programming capabilities into using VC#. For me to be able to do what I have spent $600 dollars on in Manifold, would cost me about $3000.00 dollars with Mapinfo products (Mapinfo/Mapbasic/Vertical Mapper), and about $4500.00 dollars with the ESRI products (ArcGis/Spatial Analyst/3D Analyst).
I still prefer Mapinfo for a production mapping environment, it makes great maps, it is that simple. ESRI products give a great deal more functionality with more time being spent generating a final output, and maintaining the data. Manifold does not make great maps yet, but it manages the data very easily and quickly and has more functionality than anything costing 5 to 10 times as much. It is just not easy to convince people of its capabilities when they see how little it costs.
In the near future, I believe that I will be using Manifold exclusively for Mapping/Cartography and data analysis, the product is moving too fast for me to ignore it.
The other thing that I truly appreciate about Manifold is that I have been able to solve problems that I would never have been able to with either ESRI or Mapinfo, this includes project design in three dimensions, importing and exporting of data in formats unsupported by ESRI or Mapinfo, and reprojecting and georeferencing projects that were erroneous or need transformation.
Currently Mapinfo is what I earn my living with, Manifold is the multipurpose tool that I use to make my Mapinfo work easier or possible, and ESRI is not really part of the equation.
I hope Mapinfo loses their complacent stance on development and gets aggressive, and even though they do not consider themselves a GIS product, it is being used that way by many.
All three packages have their limitations, quirks etc, but I believe currently Manifold has the fewest, but the biggest one is in the Cartography department.
Regards,
Jon Gramm
On 8/2/07, William Donaldson <william.donald...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I too have been not been impressed with "the major improvements" in each > release of MapInfo ... it certainly does not justify the big upgrade price > increases they ask. I remember a few comments on MapInfo-L over the years > saying that people are still happy with version 6.5 .....
> The new features in version 9.0 can be counted on one-hand, possibly two > (depending on what you consider useful or a major improvement)
> Earlier this year, I invested in ArcGIS 9.2 and already there have been > three service pack releases (with new added features in each). I have > already started to create and migrate some clients data across to personal > geodatabases. Why? Because for my work, there is much more functionality in > the ArcGIS environment.
> I also use Encom's Discover and they too have had two major releases in > the past year. The latest one (v 9.0, out today) has a whole swag of major > useful improvements (at a cheaper annual maintenance fee than MapInfo's) > http://web2.encom.com.au/pdfs/DiscoverAdvancesSheet_%209.0.14.pdf
> The main reasons I stay with MapInfo is because of:
> 1) The Discover add-on (for geological-related work).
> 2) I also am on the maintenance plan so that I can stay current with "the > new features" (only because I give one-on-one training in MapInfo and thus > have to stay current)
> MapInfo Professional needs a good shakeup to bring it into the current > century. I've used it for over 13 years, and the interface hasn't changed, > and several required improvements (that I've posted on both the wish list > and discussed on MapInfo-L) have never eventuated.
> Get back to me in a year. I expect to be better skilled with my ArcGIS 9.2(probably 10 by then) and then may really be leading the charge advising > clients to adopt ESRI over MapInfo.
> Regards,
> Bill
> *From:* mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com [mailto:mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Jon Gramm > *Sent:* Friday, 3 August 2007 7:08 AM > *To:* mapinfo-l@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [MI-L] Re: Hypothetical Question on Programming Future.
> Your concerns have been on the minds of many.
> The stagnation of development and actual improvements to Mapinfo/Mapbasic > over the past three versions have really not justified the upgrade or > maintenance costs.
> I have used Mapinfo since Version 3, and Mapbasic since Version 5, and > while I am all for stability and backward compatibility, I honestly believe > the management at Mapinfo has been resting on their laurels since the > introduction of Version 7. If my memory serves me correctly there was a new > object model introduced with Version 5.5 or Version 6.0, since then the > improvements have been very slow in being introduced.
> I truly don't want to compare packages, but I will use this to illustrate > what I believe to be the difference between progressive/aggressive > companies, and passive/complacent software companies.
> I purchased Manifold (Universal) Version 6.0 when it was first released in > 2004 for $525.00.
> It allowed scripting in any language that was supported by Microsoft
> (VB, VC++, VC#, Java, Perl, ETC..)
> as well as the development of standalone packages and IMS using its object > model.
> While the object model was not very mature, the package overall had many > useful features.
> (Universal includes Business tools and Surface tools as well as Geocoding. > So you get the functionality of Mapmarker, Vertical Mapper, Spatial Analyst > & 3D Analyst all in one package for less than half the cost of the base > Mapinfo or ESRI package)
> Since 2004 Manifold has released 6.5 & Version 7 as well as numerous > service packs or decimal release versions. These upgrades have only cost me > $50.00 and that was for the release of 6.5. Version 7 was a free upgrade > for users of Version 6.5.
> With each release there were literally hundreds of new features added, > modified, or improved upon.
> Manifold has also supported 64 bit operating systems since the release of > Version 7.xxx
> It supports Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, natively, as well as numerous other > database files.
> It is difficult to list all of the things that it supports, but the point > is, they continually work on improving the product. They are firmly > embracing .NET and will be releasing Version 8, probably before the end of > the year.
> I am not saying it is perfect, it still has flaws, and things that I wish > it would do better, but I am very impressed with the progress that has been > made, and the value of the package.
> Sometimes a price has to be paid for progress, and in some cases Legacy > packages have to fall by the wayside, and I also understand the great deal > of effort it takes to make a transition to other Operating systems, > development packages, frameworks and the like, but it seems to me that > Mapinfo has not made a concerted effort to move forward in any of these > areas for the past several releases, and when Project Grande was put on the > shelf, I was very disappointed.
> I don't want to buy another package (MapExtreme) to move into the .NET > world with Mapinfo products.
> I would truly like dialog/form builder tools in Mapbasic, and eventually I > would like support for the .NET framework in Mapinfo/Mapbasic, and sooner > would be better than later.
> I build applications for both Mapinfo and Manifold now, but I am making > more progress in C# for the Manifold applications than I am in Mapbasic for > Mapinfo.
> This leaves me with mixed emotions, I have been a very loyal > Mapifo/Mapbasic user and supporter in the industry that I work in for the > past 14 years, but if I can accomplish more of what I need and want in a > package that costs half as much, and get better support, and more features > with the less expensive package, wouldn't I be a fool not to put all of my > efforts into the other package?
> Yes, the stability of Mapinfo/Mapbasic is nice, and by stability I mean > consistency of the interface, and the evolutionary changes to the object > model and development package, but I do feel that more progress should have > been made, and
I'm a long-ago frequent MapInfo-L contributor, engrossed by the discussion.
(I created "Useful Resources for MapInfo Users and All People who Love Maps," in the 1990s, but haven't updated it for years.)
I am giving Manifold a serious whirl.
If you join a Manifold Google Group, you'll be the third member: So far I've found one other Manifold person. http://groups.google.com/group/manifold/ (The title says Mid-Atlantic, but you're welcome to join regardless of where you use Manifold.)
There's a Manifold-owned web forum that's very helpful--the central resource, but I miss more open-ended discussion.
|
