Bug-fixes
Tom Szabo
Before anyone jumps, I have bought my copy of VO 2.6! ( Pre-Order!!)
And it is sitting on my desk, have not loaded yet.
Why? Because at the moment I am crusing OK, and I don't fix things that are
not broken, and I have no time to be curious.
With this I don't mean that are no problems with 2.5b, but at the moment it
works ok with the workarounds, and I am in the middle of two projects.
So why did I buy the VO 2.6 upgrade? To show support, to express my faith in
VO, to contribute to revenue to further develop VO.
In the mean time I have read a few threads, and a some things bug me since:
I think it is the potential customers' right to be aware, and the
sellers/marketer's interest to let the customer know what are the
reasons/benefits the given product that makes it a good investment to
purchase it.
It is very much in the interest of the existing customer to know the
direction of a product like VO. Most of us are developers, who likes to know
what will happen to VO. I can sense some overheated loyalty in some of the
threads, there may be worshipers too :-))...
Anyway I am one of those who like to know what is the direction for VO, what
approach will Brian take, etc, and I strongly beleive it is a fair
expectation, speacially for those who show support.
To avoid some missunderstandings, I am not impatient, and neither I am
criticising Brian nor I am complaning about what they have or have not done.
Ruther I am supporting (showing my support of ) those people who express
their wishes and expectations.
I find it quite strange/amazing that we are EXPECTED to buy the upgrade but
should not expect a list of reasons to do so. ( refer to the bug fix list).
It may have not been said like this, but at least in my understanding that
was the tone I was picking up...
If buying VO 2.6 is a business decision, we obviously would need to be
convinced that it is beneficial to us
If it is a charity donation, than we also like to know what is the aim of
the charity and how will they spend it...
Further more, I am happy happy to support the VO development, but I like to
know what am I supporting,
In other words, where is VO heading, what will change in the respect of
support, bugfixes, development cycles. What position will VO try to take up
in the market?
These questions may have been already answered already somewhere by
somebody, but I am sure that I am not alone in waiting to find it.
Regards,
Tom
Geoff Schaller
With all due respect, you have missed the major reason for 2.6's existence.
Yes it is a point release and therefor there ARE a range of important things
which have been fixed. But the main reason is that 2.6 is financing the
development of VO 3.0 - this is quite clear from everything GrafXSoft has
said. It is a proofing concept also between CA and GrafXSoft. We don't
"need" 2.6 either - especially since I already own the SDK and most of the
3rd party products but I am happy to contribute toward the development of
3.0 and was one of the people to recommend to Brian that this be a paid-for
point release.
No-one is expecting you to do anything. You seem to have the wrong attitude
here. But we are asking you for your support. Nothing more.
Cheers,
Geoff
Tom Szabo
With all respects, please read my posting again, I think you have missed my
point,
Regards,
Tom
"Geoff Schaller" <geof...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:3Ems9.2897$DP6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Geoff Schaller
>>I find it quite strange/amazing that we are EXPECTED to buy the upgrade<<
and...
>>If buying VO 2.6 is a business decision, we obviously would need to be
convinced that it is beneficial to us<<
There are two more paragraphs below these continuing the same theme. It was
these paragraphs which prompted my response.
I sympathise, Tom, I really do. But I have a different perspective and hope
to convince you accordingly. Perhaps we can talk over these issues when I
come up to QLD in a few weeks time?
Happy to listen to your perspective and to see what we can do about it.
Geoff
Tom Szabo
I was simply trying to say, that it is all ok to expect us to give GraphX a
fair go, and it is in our interest to help the development.
>>Yes it is a point release and therefor there ARE a range of important
things
>>which have been fixed.
If there has been, it is helpful to let people know. Not neccessarily
everyone locked in using VO, so it is helpful to let people know that it is
more than just colleting donations.
>> But the main reason is that 2.6 is financing the
>>development of VO 3.0 - this is quite clear from everything GrafXSoft has
>>said. It is a proofing concept also between CA and GrafXSoft. We don't
>>"need" 2.6 either - especially since I already own the SDK and most of the
>>3rd party products but I am happy to contribute toward the development of
>>3.0 and was one of the people to recommend to Brian that this be a
paid-for
>>point release.
To put it simply, I was commenting on the attitude I felt from some of the
postings, that is buy VO so GraphX can do the further development and don't
worry about what you will get, they need the money.
This has not been said like this, I just felt that was behind it!!!
This is what I commented on.
Further more, as I stated, I have already bought my copy, and mostly to
support the further development, as you know since I bought it from you
guys.
I have no problem with the motive, I support it, but I think people feel
better if they told what they are getting for they money, and also what it
will be spent on.
Even with raffles when you pay $10 and you can win a $20 prize, you know
that $19 are to support the charity or whatever purpose ..., even then you
get told two things:
1, what will your $19 dollars gets spent on
2, what will be the prize
That was all I was to say,
I know you have good intention, but I think it would improve our
communication if you try to understand the intention behind the posting and
respond to that instead of responding to a part of it, a paraghraph or a
piece of reasoning. I will also try to be clearer next time.
Regards,
Tom
No-one is expecting you to do anything. You seem to have the wrong attitude
here. But we are asking you for your support. Nothing more.
"Geoff Schaller" <geof...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:_fns9.3047$DP6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Phil McGuinness
Phil
-----
"Tom Szabo" <t...@intersoft.net.au> wrote in message
news:0Pls9.2798$DP6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Phil McGuinness
snip[ a raffle... <yikes> ]
Maybe it should be a Roulette table.. I will put it all on "BLACK".. Ok
spin that wheel.
Phil
----
"Tom Szabo" <t...@intersoft.net.au> wrote in message
news:J3os9.3169$DP6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Bj or Tom T
[SNIP]
> In other words, where is VO heading, what will change in the respect of
> support, bugfixes, development cycles. What position will VO try to take
up
> in the market?
Hi Tom;
Slip in the install disk. Brian talks about his where he is heading in the
readme.
Regards;
Don Bjortomt
Tom Szabo
I am wondering if you give donations before the collector explains to you
what are you donating for, or do you normally by raffle tickets before they
tell you what is the prize to win?
In this case I did, because I am locked in with VO, and I love it. (normally
I don't give the benefit of the doubt, this was an exception)
But are we all?
Regards,
Tom
"Bj or Tom T" <bjor...@nospamfwi.com> wrote in message
news:dups9.1787$r4.4...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Gary Stark
Phil McGuinness wrote:
> Tom,
>
> snip[ a raffle... <yikes> ]
>
> Maybe it should be a Roulette table.. I will put it all on "BLACK".. Ok
> spin that wheel.
Russian Roulette, anyone? <g>
--
g.
Gary Stark
gst...@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com
Gary Stark
Tom Szabo wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> I am wondering if you give donations before the collector explains to you
> what are you donating for, or do you normally by raffle tickets before they
> tell you what is the prize to win?
Interesting that you mention this. Several years ago I was looking at apartments
in Dallas. The lady showing us around wanted me to sign up to rent one place
without having seen even a similar floorplan to the one she wanted me to take
up. I asked her whether she was prepared to buy a pair of shoes without trying
them on. Unfortunately, she was a salesperson, and gave me the wrong answer.
Such is life, eh?
But getting back to the point, I'm having trouble seeing your objections here.
Brian has, right from the outset, made it very clear as to what his agenda was
going to be. My understanding was that he was going to be getting the latest
source code from CA. He would then tidy that up a little, and release that
within the following four to six months as 2.6. In so doing, he was also going
to be including a large number of third party products as well.
Is my understanding of this wrong? I went back and had another look at his
statement of direction, and no, I don't believe my understanding is incorrect.
More importantly, looking at the distributables that Brian has shipped, I really
do believe that he's complied with his statement of direction and issued the
release that he promised.
From reading your messages I'm getting the feeling that you believe that you
bought into 2.6 unaware of what you were buying. I'm curious about this,
because Brian's statements have, I think, been quite clear right from the
outset, and so my curiosity has been piqued because you appear to have a
somewhat different perspective.
Did you read Brian's SOD? Did you read it before you placed your order?
Which part of it do you believe he has failed to deliver on?
Also, bear in mind that you, by your own admission, haven't yet installed 2.6.
What you're saying here is really, by your own definition, based only upon
heresay, and I think that you might have an issue answering my last question
until you instal and play with the product.
I suspect that perhaps you're forming a judgement based upon the experiences of
a couple of people who have found issues that need to be addressed, but equally,
you might not be giving adequate weight to the opinions of those who have
installed 2.6, found it to be both satisfactory and delivered as promised, and
who are already moving forward with the product.
I've noted, for instance, that there have already been a large number of people
who have said they have the product, but only a very small number have actually
identified any real issues. That already tells me much about the product, and
perhaps we should pay a tad more attention to the silence of the majority here.
Of the issues, yes, there's a few. I really hate it when I issue a new release,
and the first client who gets it finds an error of my making. But who amongst us
issues perfect code?
The bBrowser installer was incorrectly configured. Joachim has already addressed
that issue and posted the link for the fix. The caller for the help file was
looking for the wrong filename. Although I understand that Brian had already
posted the fix for that before the product even reached the first clients, just
pointing Windows at the correct file when the error first occurs is enough to
fix it.
Grum may well be correct in that there's an issue in the indexing when there's
hyphens involved, and he's identified a problem when he compares a sequence of
records with a sequence of similar records that's produced under the Palm OS.
But which sequence is correct? Is this any different from the way that the
sequencing of icon names is performed when selecting the icon that the
application draws upon for its use as the application's default icon? I honestly
don't know, but I can tell you that in the latter case, the sequencing is not
standard ASCII. But also, in the latter case, I think that the issue may be one
of Windows' sequencing, rather than VO.
Given that the Palm is a Mac based system, perhaps what Grum's seeing is a
difference in the way that the different CPUs see things. There certainly are
other areas (time and date storage springs to mind) where we need to accommodate
those sorts of differences in moving data between the two environments, and
while this one isn't yet clear, I'm happy to keep my mind open on it until I see
a definitve resolution.
The issue of the use of long file names in resource references, like these other
two issues, has been around for a lot longer than 2.6. That Brian hasn't yet
been able to resolve these issues isn't necessarily a major issue though. CA had
VO for a hell of a lot longer than Brian has had it for, and clearly they were
just sitting on their hands.
Given Brian's stated agenda, and his public statements telling us about some of
the that he's tried to do since acquiring the product , I think that he's done
damn well to meet his specified timeframe for the release of 2.6. I'm perhaps a
little disappointed that we didn't get to see the C7 versions yet, but I think
that the testing of that, were it anywhere near ready, would have been a mammoth
project in and of itself.
For now, I'm really not that surprised that Brian hasn't taken the time to make
any statements about all of this as yet. Remember that he still has a lot of
product to ship to us, and I'm sure that he's keeping the UPS guys well and
truly busy ferrying VO all over the place.
I think that we probably need to give him a few more days to catch up with this
backlog. I'm sure that when he gets a chance to draw a breath, he'll pop up in
here and give us an update.
Tom Szabo
Thanks for your reply, but you have missunderstood me a little, perhaps
could have read my posting a little more careful:
>>In the mean time I have read a few threads, and a some things bug me
since:
>>I think it is the potential customers' right to be aware, and the
>>sellers/marketer's interest to let the customer know what are the
>>reasons/benefits the given product that makes it a good investment to
>>purchase it.
>>It is very much in the interest of the existing customer to know the
>>direction of a product like VO. Most of us are developers, who likes to
know
>>what will happen to VO. I can sense some overheated loyalty in some of the
>>threads, there may be worshipers too :-))...
The key to what I was trying to get at is in the above sections. The stuff
above it was just leading in to explain that I have actually supported
Brian, and I have tried to indicate that I am not complaining about what I
did or what I have got.
I was indicating my dislike of those comments that I have read in some
threads, they were not written for me, I just have read other's threads, and
I felt an attitude in some of the answers that I disagreed with...
By no means I have said or thought that Brian let us down, I was writing
about the attitude, the tone behind some answers independent of Brian I
beleive...
Anyway, if you go back and read it again, perhaps now it is going to be
clear.
Regards,
Tom
"Gary Stark" <8905...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote in message
news:3DB2CA0A...@RedbacksWeb.com...
Gary Stark
Tom Szabo wrote:
> Hi Garry,
>
> Thanks for your reply, but you have missunderstood me a little, perhaps
> could have read my posting a little more careful:
>
> >>In the mean time I have read a few threads, and a some things bug me
> since:
>
> >>I think it is the potential customers' right to be aware, and the
> >>sellers/marketer's interest to let the customer know what are the
> >>reasons/benefits the given product that makes it a good investment to
> >>purchase it.
>
> >>It is very much in the interest of the existing customer to know the
> >>direction of a product like VO. Most of us are developers, who likes to
> know
> >>what will happen to VO. I can sense some overheated loyalty in some of the
> >>threads, there may be worshipers too :-))...
>
> The key to what I was trying to get at is in the above sections. The stuff
> above it was just leading in to explain that I have actually supported
> Brian, and I have tried to indicate that I am not complaining about what I
> did or what I have got.
OK; thanx for the clarification of that.
Upon rereading what you've written, I ca see what you mean. I suspect that in
reality you're saying something quite similar to what I said then: that there's
perhaps a somewhat noisy minority here that's creating a disproportionate level
of static then.
> I was indicating my dislike of those comments that I have read in some
> threads, they were not written for me, I just have read other's threads, and
> I felt an attitude in some of the answers that I disagreed with...
Yes, I agree.
> By no means I have said or thought that Brian let us down, I was writing
> about the attitude, the tone behind some answers independent of Brian I
> beleive...
Some of which has been less than professional.
> Anyway, if you go back and read it again, perhaps now it is going to be
> clear.
Yep; many thanx for clearing it up for me.
Tom Szabo
I am glad it is all clear,
Regards,
Tom
"Gary Stark" <8905...@RedbacksWeb.com> wrote in message
news:3DB3368C...@RedbacksWeb.com...
Marc
> approach will Brian take, etc, and I strongly beleive it is a fair
> expectation, speacially for those who show support.
Good question. I also would like to know.
And I am looking forward to a statement from Grafx as to the plans for VO3.
But maybe we could give Grafx a couple of weeks to handle this 2.6 update.
-Marc-