MLO v 2.0 Upgrade charge - a joke?
Greg.O
I've been using MLO for almost two years and have contributed to the
forum quite a few times. I was excited to notice version 2 has been
released today. Excited only till I found out I'm expected to shell
out $30 for the upgrade.
Seriously, are the extra features worth paying for the application
again? To be completely honest the development of MLO has been
sluggish. Fair enough, I'm not a developer and so do not fully
appreciate the complexity of the development process. However, if
users are expected to pay for every new release they should be offered
a set of new features that's really worth paying for. And at a
schedule that's better than 1 major release every 3 years.
I'm not the first who's complained about the speed of development. I
may be completely wrong but it seems like the development team
consists of 1 member (yourself) and even the only member doesn't work
on the product full time. If you plan on charging people for upgrading
to the latest version maybe your business model should be given a
think-over. If MLO is to be improving and responding to users' needs
your 'development team' needs to grow larger. Maybe the code needs to
be released to some extent so some of the feature requests can be
addressed by users themselves in the form of plug-ins (I'm sure
there're plenty of developers on the forum). If this happens, the
development process becomes speedier and users' suggestions are
addressed I will be more than happy to pay. $30 doesn't bother me that
much. However, knowing I'm paying for somebody who's not fully
committed to the product and uses a new release as a convenient cash
cow makes me think twice. And decide not to upgrade. I mean seriously,
MLO google group has recently reached 2000 users. It's probably safe
to assume there are at least twice that many users who paid for the
application but are not members of the group. So we're talking about
6000 people. Even if only half of them have to pay the upgrade fee
that's $90,000 in upgrade charges. For this money you could have a few
developers (working in Russia or one of the post-soviet republic as I
assume that's were you're based) working for a year, taking the
product to another level and making it the best app around (I agree
it's one of the best already). But $90,000 for someone who's only
committed to be releasing new versions every few years depending on
how much spare time he'll have to devote to development...well, that's
too much.
Ok, so that is a rant and I realize it may be one founded on incorrect
assumptions. Maybe there's more than one person working on MLO, maybe
you are fully committed to the development of the product. But bear in
mind that I'm probably not the only person who'll think to himself "
whoa! So I have to pay $30 again..? Is it justified? I guess I'll just
stick to the latest beta".
I guess a few people not paying for the upgrade won't really worry you
as you'll still make lots of money but maybe it's worth writing a post
explaining what exactly it is we're expected to pay for, how the money
will go towards improving the product, how some of it will be spent
getting extra team members to work on the application (if it's true)
etc. I think that could go a long way towards making some of the users
less p***d off.
Regards,
Greg
Ps. You can use this post as a springboard for discussion about the
upgrade charges if you want. However, I won't be replying to any new
posts as I really don't have time to do that and just wanted to let a
voice of a dissapointed user heard.
Tomasz
pay again.
There is nothing wrong with having a license for a year, but the time
based requirement for users to keep paying to renew the licenses must
be met with a corresponding, also time based, effort from the product
development. I have not seen such approach in development of MLO.
The beta releases can not be counted in because they are part of the
development process and users are donating their time and effort to
help the development and at the end of their effort they are met with
this(in my own words):"Now that you all helped with the product
development, pay me."
I don't want to reduce what the developer makes, I would like to
request that license fees are charged based on what is delivered to
us, paying customers, not based on how long the developer has taken to
add some features.
Tomas
imajeff
wonder though, do you think your upgrade price ($30) is worth it to
you or not? Why complain and say, "hey no fair you can't tell me what
to pay for your work", when you could simply decide not to pay it like
the rest of the people who decide if the product is worth the price
tag?
1. Why do you talk like they charge you full price for the upgrade...
do you not know how much discount you are being offered?
2. So one or more are saying that it's terrible your license only
lasted one year but you have to wait 3 years for the next release...
Don't you see a problem with your math there? How are you claiming you
only got one year when there have been no major releases so you've got
free updates for THREE years?
3. Personally I struggled with the original price (over $60) but I
don't see how you can struggle with $30. These benefits that I've
seen, to improve how I "organize my life"... They are worth that price
once every three years to me! Hmmm... Maybe you could try saving one
dollar every time he gives you a free minor release which improves the
product (they were not only bug fixes). By the time the "major
release" comes out, think how much money you'd have saved to pay for
it!
I look forward to other people's points about this too. Thanks for
listening. --jeffs
Francois Menard
Limbic
On Apr 22, 7:52 pm, "Greg.O" <greg.osimow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrey,
>
> I've been using MLO for almost two years and have contributed to the
> forum quite a few times. I was excited to notice version 2 has been
> released today. Excited only till I found out I'm expected to shell
> out $30 for the upgrade.
I think when one looks at this one can see it fair enough.
It is normal to pay for an upgrade when there is a 1.x to a 2.x
upgrade. Ones loyalty and previous custom are reflected in the
discount. And you are not being forced to upgrade, you can just keep
using 1.x
Usually one only gets a year of updates, upgrades and support for a
given license fee. I have been get betas and bug fixes for 2 years
now.
These guys are highly active, responsive to the community and in my
mind more than deserving of this modest upgrade fee.
I love this product, I want to support its development, if that means
$30 a year* it is a bargain.
Andrey et al, congratulation on getting to this great milestone. Keep
up the good work. Its no joke trying to make a living and I think (and
hope) most of the community will fully support your legitimate license
fees.
* I paid for my original professional license back in 2005 or 6.
tomd
> Seriously, are the extra features worth paying for the application
> again?
That depends. What's fantastic feature for one, others don't care
about at all. Upgrading is a choice. Not upgrading is a good choice
if the version you purchased works well for you (I for one admire all
the great features, but only use minor part of the feature set)
> To be completely honest the development of MLO has been
> sluggish.
Sluggishness depends on what are you comparing with. I'm loyal to
software with new release every 2 years. And I was spoiled by another
developer who at one point kept releasing new versions almost if not
every week (for Win, Linux and BSD at same time).
Just looked into change-log, and the time is 9-10 months from the
last major version (not counting the bugfix release in the meantime).
Well yes, for one thing, in the past (2005,2006) development seemed
to move way quicker (counting by the time of releases, not by source
code lines or any other better measure)
> Fair enough, I'm not a developer and so do not fully
> appreciate the complexity of the development process.
I'm only mildly acquainted with what's behind the curtain, from my
limited knowledge I think the filtering system and the related
changes must have been fairly complex and worthy to be called major
release.
> However, if
> users are expected to pay for every new release they should be offered
> a set of new features that's really worth paying for. And at a
> schedule that's better than 1 major release every 3 years.
3 years? But major releases are not by the number (1.x, 2.x).
Numbering has little to do with it. I'm sure you have seen or used
applications where they are for few years still in 0.x, yet keep
adding new major features. They just use different numbering system.
Here IMHO 1->2 doesn't reflect that it has now twice the features the
1.x had. Features were being added all the time into 1.x, and now
came the time to ask for an upgrade fee, after all, at some point
most developers do so.
Andrey could keep all the features for himself and only to introduce
them at one time in the 2.x version, so that we would become
thunderstruck and eager to upgrade, I'm sure at that time we would be
rightfully complaining about the 3year release time, yet we would
probably be sitting awestruck by all the awesome improvements and
ready to upgrade without objections.
But we would have missed the 3 years of free updates in the meantime!
Yeah they seem minor if you spread them over 3 years one by one.
> I may be completely wrong but it seems like the development team
> consists of 1 member (yourself) and even the only member doesn't work
> on the product full time.
Sorry but that's good argument only for sake of arguing.
Andrey is upfront about that.
95% of the shareware companies out there are one-man show that the
developer runs after the working hours. Yes, many of them have sales,
support, marketing and more departments, but that's just on the web.
Website can take anything.
Moreover he isn't the only guy working on it, there are other people
on the contract. I'm not fully acquainted but I believe Oleg (PPC
version developer) is not the only other developer besides Andrey.
> However, knowing I'm paying for somebody who's not fully
> committed to the product.
Full time on the product is not equivalent of fully committed to the product.
At least not in the shareware world.
> And decide not to upgrade.
Absolutely ! The upgrade is not mandatory.
> 6000 people. Even if only half of them have to pay the upgrade fee
> that's $90,000 in upgrade charges.
Well numbers look nice in a simple calculation, but I wouldn't be daring to put out an estimate.
Many people use the free version. Some subscribed shortly while
testing (and not many people unsubscribe after leaving the
group....they just stop visiting). Some are subscribed under more
addresses. Some just keep watching new developments (waiting for
feature x). Some are spammers.
And this is todo software. Similar to self-help books. Some people
buy it as yet another magical remedy to all their problems, and stop
using after a week.
That all shall be considered.
> Ok, so that is a rant and I realize it may be one founded on incorrect
> assumptions.
Well..you are definitely entitled to an opinion and welcome to air it here on the forum.
> But bear in mind that I'm probably not the only person who'll think
> to himself " whoa! So I have to pay $30 again..? Is it justified? I
> guess I'll just stick to the latest beta".
But that happens all the time, with all the software.
Simply there is always someone for whom the upgrade doesn't seem
reasonable, due to many valid reasons.
> but maybe it's worth writing a post
> explaining what exactly it is we're expected to pay for
http://www.mylifeorganized.net/products/my-life-organized/change-log.htm
> how the money
> will go towards improving the product
That would be real nice from Andrey, but my phone company doesn't do
that, Microsoft doesn't do that, not even my government with the
taxes they collect from me.
> getting extra team members to work on the application (if it's true)
I guess there are some already.
> I think that could go a long way towards making some of the users
> less p***d off.
That's right, the better communication towards the users, the less of them p***d.
Tom
tomd
> There is nothing wrong with having a license for a year, but the time
> based requirement for users to keep paying to renew the licenses must
> be met with a corresponding, also time based, effort from the product
> development.
I can't agree more.
Part of thing is that the new features delivered, are worthy to some,
yet not worthy of bother for others.
There is still the choice to keep the old version and only upgrade
when the new features that you can justify paying for are delivered,
or when you feel that enough effort was made already.
I know I'm sounding stupid/simplistic. But I feel part of this thing
is driven by emotions and people momentarily forget that they are not
required to upgrade.
And I know from my own experience that it's really hard to resist
form upgrading, even if you don't need the new features. I admit I
keep checking for new updates to products I didn't use in a
year....because I feel I want the new version.
Yet it's so liberating experience NOT to upgrade if one doesn't
really need it.
> The beta releases can not be counted in because they are part of the
> development process.
True.
> help the development and at the end of their effort they are met with
> this(in my own words):"Now that you all helped with the product
> development, pay me."
Beta testing is voluntary.
(It's probably driven by the same desire that's the upgrading driven
by - people want to have their hands on the "latest thing").
Still kudos to all beta testers and hats off, particularly before the
active ones (as many beta testers are rather passive, just driven by
the desire to have the latest toy).
> I don't want to reduce what the developer makes, I would like to
> request that license fees are charged based on what is delivered to
> us, paying customers, not based on how long the developer has taken to
> add some features.
Same for me. It's good to have an open discussion.
In my book what is delivered is a perceived value by the user. Whether the price is right or not, is up to the user.
With the software, when you have paid, it was say " for version 1.4 + 12 months if any updates within that period".
Do you have some suggestions as for what shall be a better road for Andrey to take?
I feel the only way to be 100% transparent is to put out a release schedule for next 2-3 years, clearly indicating major milestones and when upgrade fees will be requested, yet it's probably unrealistic due to impossibility to predict how long coding takes, and due to competition and similar reasons.
Another way is a timed license, as in "$20 per year". (Not that I like it myself, quite opposite.)
Or maybe not waiting 3 long years before proclaiming new major number
version, but perhaps keeping the current more or less regular
development progress (eg. 1-3 updates per year), and asking for an
update fee every year, but significantly smaller update fee than this
one.
Some more and better ideas?
PS. This is based on my understanding that it's hard to judge whether
the value delivered is enough - it's enough for some, yet not by far
for others, that's unavoidable though and rather subjective.
James Murphy
>
> I think when one looks at this one can see it fair enough.
No, it isn't - and I will tell you why, simply because the BETA has
been of v1 not of v2
If they had said, up front, that the new version was going to be V2
then that would have been fair enough - we'd have had warning of the
paid upgrade and, in my case, would simply have ignored the beta
completely pending the release of v2 (at which point I'd probably
still have continued with V1 which - as I have said before - does
enough for me).
Again, as I've said before, the version after 1.9 is 1.10 not 2.0 and
its this that I find disapointing.
--
Murph
Dmitry_N
> been of v1 not of v2
too :(
blueSky
product for more than a year. However I would say that the MLO beta
testing has been very open and that there are some here that feel they
they have contributed greatly to product development (not me I hasten
to add!).
Perhaps next time the beta should be more restricted and those allowed
to participate in the beta tests get an upgrade at a reduced price or
for free.
It was made very clear to me that when I bought MLO end of last year
that I would get all the upgrades free for the first 12 months, after
that I would have to pay. I have no cause for complaint.
Something else to say, MLO is unusual in that it is so small and
lightweight and runs from a USB. Many of its competitors do not do
that and that makes it very useful to me. The layout is very clean and
uncluttered as well.
Its a great product, this is a great forum and we get listened to as
well.
Trying to be positive here, Andrey - keep going, don't give up!! Some
of us, many of us, probably most of us love MLO!
dfoster
matter where Andrey is based, how much time he puts into development,
or anything else other than whether the price for the software
(initial release or upgrade release) provides a good return on
investment.
Others have touched on it in this thread but the bottom line is that
this software has the potential to save you hundreds or thousands of
dollars a year through better planning and scheduling. If you're in
sales or an executive role the simple benefit of not forgetting to
make that call or organise that meeting can multiply those savings
tenfold.
Andrey has my $30 with pleasure and with my hearty congratulations on
continuing to deliver a GREAT product. Keep up the good work!
Greg.O
and clarification.
I had a really tough day yesterday. While still in the office at the
end of the day I noticed a new version of MLO had been released. It
made my day - I hadn't been following the forum too closely recently
and got REALLY excited to see the new release. I downloaded the
program, started it only to be greeted by a prompt to pay for the
upgrade. I've looked through the change log and noticed not much had
been added compared to the beta I'd been using for some time. I was
dissapointed not to see much improvement. I guess the frustration of
the previous 10 hours got the better of me and somehow it made me
write the post that started this thread and say things I would not
normally say. My apologies for that - especially for the part about
what the development team is or should be and how much a cash cow MLO
can be for Andrey. It's none of my business really.
MLO is a great application. I use it every day. I love it's simplicity
of use backed by some really powerful features (great work with the
filtering). It's my application of choice for managing my work and
personal life and I recommend it to whoever I can. I guess it's
because I like it so much and rely on it so heavily that I sometimes
get frustrated with the slow progress of MLO development (I know it's
relative, just my opinion). I guess I know how much more MLO could
help me if some features were implemented (e.g. something that would
help to manage workload and scheduling by telling me how many hours
worth of tasks I've scheduled for any given day) and I'm under the
impression things could be moved forward at a much greater pace should
more resources be put into developing the product.
MLO can be the best of the breed and I want to see it there. And I
want to see this happen soon. But then again, I can't demand that
Andrey's business is run this or that way - it's his product, his
dream, his money.
So again, my apologies for some of the remarks. I do love MLO and I
will keep supporting it with my money. All I can ask of Andrey is that
he gives it a think-over - if some more resources are devoted to the
development, if more people can be involved (I'm sure there would be
people who'd be happy to help coding some solutions) MLO can really
become the best program out there - something I'm sure everyone on
this forum (as well as yourself) would like to see. You've got a
really active and devoted group of people who love and support the
product - you may just as well think on capitalizing on it.
Best regards,
Greg.O
blueSky
MLO or any other todo gtd type software is not the limiting factor. My
biggest problem is my need for greater self-discipline!!!! Anyone got
any suggestions on how to fix that?? Bet even Andrey can't alter the
wat my brain is wired :)
Steve Wynn
I wouldn't say it teaches you better self-discipline as such, but it does give you a strategic program for overcoming procrastination. Uses a lot of reverse psychology to get you to want to work but at the same time enjoy guilt-free play. There is a Yahoo discussion group about the Now Habit, and the author is a member.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheNowHabit/
Or check out Do It Tomorrow (DIT), by Mark Forster. This implements the function of a Will-Do/Closed List rather than an open todo list ala GTD context list.
There is also a Yahoo discussion group on DIT, again the author is a member.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/do_it_tomorrow/
All the best
Steve
Mark Levison
> Again, as I've said before, the version after 1.9 is 1.10 not 2.0 and
> its this that I find disapointing.
Apparently we learned different math somewhere along the way 1.9 >
1.10. Yes I've seen some products (most open source) that use .xx
version numbering scheme - but its usually to avoid having a 1.0
release which people expect to be stable.
I also believe if you dig back through the messages on this forum that
the arrival of 2.0 has been discussed more than a few times. On at
least one occaision I recall Andrey chiming in with a rough outline of
his plans.
So while I appreciate your beef I believe you're wrong two key points of fact.
Cheers
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog: http://www.notesfromatooluser.com/
One Year of Scrum: Lessons Learned
http://www.notesfromatooluser.com/2007/10/one-year-of-scr.html
Aperture vs. Lightroom - best comparisons
http://www.notesfromatooluser.com/2007/02/aperture_vs_lig.html
Customer Retention Department - Vonage Customer Service Sucks
http://www.notesfromatooluser.com/2007/06/customer_retent.html
tomd
http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized/browse_thread/thread/3b3903c187c8e3aa#
Tom
Mark Levison
>
> Actually it was mentioned in the past that there will be 1.10, and 1.11 following the 1.9:
> http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized/browse_thread/thread/3b3903c187c8e3aa#
>
James Murphy
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:28 AM, James Murphy <jtcm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, as I've said before, the version after 1.9 is 1.10 not 2.0 and
> > its this that I find disapointing.
>
> Apparently we learned different math somewhere along the way 1.9 >
> 1.10.
It is, if we're discussing maths (-: however we're not, we're
discussing application version numbering schemes which tend to be
along the lines of Major.Minor.Revision and sometimes .build too.
It has to be said that Numbering for betas is a pain - but even so
labeling a beta as 1.n and then releasing it as 2.0 is, erm, perhaps
not the ideal (something for future reference).
Can I be clear about a couple of things - I don't object to paid
upgrades for major version changes and I do think that the filtering
and other changes justify describing the new release as a major
version change what I'm not happy about is being mislead (even if, as
I believe, it wasn't intentional).
--
Murph
Swifty
project. No other software product fits so closely with the
methodologies I use for personal productivity and time management.
I am happy to pay an upgrade fee to ensure that the product continues
to be developed and new features added. I would like to see more
exposure and marketing for this product so that an additional
development engineer could be added. What the author of this post does
not understand is that with small projects such as these it is really
up to us as loyal users to get the word out and slowly grow the user
base. This is the only way that enough momentum can build behind the
project to allow it to grow and additional staff to be added to the
team, etc.
It may never happen like that but we can all do a little to help move
it in that direction. Supporting the project with your dollars (as few
as they are) is the first step in that direction.
Josh
On Apr 24, 5:42 am, "James Murphy" <jtcmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/4/23 Mark Levison <mlevi...@gmail.com>:
James Murphy
> What the author of this post does
> not understand
If you're referring to me then I wish you wouldn't join the list of
participants that make bad assumptions about what I do and don't
understand - and further that you'd read what I'm unhappy about
(because its NOT the notion of paying for major version upgrades). If
you're not referring to me then ignore me (-:
--
Murph
Andrey Tkachuk (MLO)
Yes it was very important milestone for us and thanks to those why
support us!
I decided not to hide new functionality until final releases and
publish it in beta-s so that people who want to use it have this
possibility. It might be more clever decision to hide it until the
final release so that nobody disappointed with “no changes”. But I
decided that it is more important to give people new cool features as
soon as possible since they need it. Even if the cost of this is to
get messages like this I am ready to answer them :-) MLO becomes
better because of this public beta-s policy also. I would hate if you
got FINAL releases with bugs and surprised changes you don’t like. So
I will keep publishing beta-s for those who want to use them. There is
also a restricted group of beta testers who test the initial alpha
releases if there are critical changes which might affect stability.
Let me say that 2.0 has been published according to EULA. Many people
have been using MLO for 2-3 years already and this is the first paid
upgrade for them. The list of features is in the change log.
>what exactly it is we're expected to pay for
1.9.1. If you like it and want to use it you upgrade to 2.0. If you do
not need it yet – you do not upgrade and use 1.9.1. The new features
which will be added to 2.x will be also bonuses for those who upgrade.
--------------------
IMPORTANT NOTICE: since 1.9.9-beta has all the functionality of 2.0
it will EXPIRE soon and you will NOT be able to use this beta. You
will need to use 1.9.1 again or upgrade to 2.0. The links to 1.9.x
installations are placed here: http://www.mylifeorganized.net/downloads/
I think it is fair enough so that only those who upgrade use 2.0
features.
---------------------
>If they had said, up front, that the new version was going
>to be V2 then that would have been fair enough
become 2.0. This is why I mentioned about 1.9.10 .. 11. However during
the work I changed my mind and decided that filtering is a MAJOR
change and this is the reason for 2.0. Please note that as I said in
that message people still got FREE upgrade to 2.0 if they purchased
1.9.1 after that post.
I have also mentioned about my 2.0 thoughts in one of my posts:
“I am still thinking if it will be 2.0. Might be.”
http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized/browse_thread/thread/9b6cdd5f5d937c64?lnk=gst&q=%222.0%22+%22Might+be%22
I agree that I might need to mention this more clearly when I have the
final decision. I will do it in the future.
[Greg.O]
>of apology and clarification.
“sorry” and I DO appreciate it. I will do my best to keep you happy
with MLO and to speed up the development. I do have people who help me
with development. The filtering was the hard part, however, together
with difficult time on my full time job during this period. It will be
better soon – see below why.
>Andrey - keep going, don't give up!!
recently so there are great things coming in MLO soon... :-) Thank you
again for your support!
And finally I have one little surprise for those who have upgraded to
2.0. Read about this soon in my next post about “Task Dependency”.
Andrey.
Luciano Passuello
Wow Andrey! Congratulations!
This is the kind of news I waited years to hear! :D
Task dependencies looking good, 2.0 looking good, MLO is really taking off.
Looks like we all have a lot to celebrate!!!
Best Regards,
Luciano Passuello
http://litemind.com
~Exploring ways to use our minds efficiently.
-----Original Message-----
From: myLifeO...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:myLifeO...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrey Tkachuk (MLO)
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:02 PM
To: MyLifeOrganized
Subject: [MLO] Re: MLO v 2.0 Upgrade charge - a joke?
Hi ALL,
Yes it was very important milestone for us and thanks to those why
support us!
I decided not to hide new functionality until final releases and
publish it in beta-s so that people who want to use it have this
possibility. It might be more clever decision to hide it until the
final release so that nobody disappointed with "no changes". But I
decided that it is more important to give people new cool features as
soon as possible since they need it. Even if the cost of this is to
get messages like this I am ready to answer them :-) MLO becomes
better because of this public beta-s policy also. I would hate if you
got FINAL releases with bugs and surprised changes you don't like. So
I will keep publishing beta-s for those who want to use them. There is
also a restricted group of beta testers who test the initial alpha
releases if there are critical changes which might affect stability.
Let me say that 2.0 has been published according to EULA. Many people
have been using MLO for 2-3 years already and this is the first paid
upgrade for them. The list of features is in the change log.
>what exactly it is we're expected to pay for
I think you pay for the new functionality already implemented after
1.9.1. If you like it and want to use it you upgrade to 2.0. If you do
not need it yet - you do not upgrade and use 1.9.1. The new features
better soon - see below why.
Mark Levison
> I will not! Never! :-) I have decided to leave my full time job
> recently so there are great things coming in MLO soon... :-) Thank you
> again for your support!
Wow - congrats Andrey that is just amazing.
Greg.O
(hopefully, this is the reason for leaving :) ) is such great news!!
I'm really excited to see how it's going it affect the development of
MLO.
Sometimes in life we make big decisions, sometimes they scare us.
However, I really believe this was a good one on your part. As I said
in my earlier post you have a really commited user community and now,
with more free time on your hands, I'm sure you can take MLO to
another level. And with a little effort this can translate into a
profitable business - one that will make you never look back at
working for someone else.
Thanks and good luck,
Greg.O
Andy Red
brave and wise decision. We are writing a new website for our
business, I am going to put a link to you on our footer.
My colleague uses a Mac, so I'm having a hard time explaining to him
why MLO is so good... hint hint ;)
And Greg O. - good on you for writing such a great apology - takes a
big man to do that. I like the fact that this is a passionate forum
(we really do care about this software) but that it is also grown up
and positive as well, there's none of that tiresome childish
infighting and flaming going on. So I was a little bit saddened by
your original post as it seemed a bit unnecessary, but your clear
explanation makes it all the better. Hey we all have bad days, quite
honestly it's a miracle my computer hasn't gone out of the window
before now!
You've created something good Andrey and I wish you the best of luck.
Right, I'm off to try out the new dependency thing.
Andrew
Charles Roper
> I will not! Never! :-) I have decided to leave my full time job
> recently so there are great things coming in MLO soon... :-) Thank you
> again for your support!
my $30 upgrade fee as I consider MLO to be well, well, worth it. In
fact, it's the fifth most used app on my system (was 3rd most used
last month): http://wakoopa.com/charlesroper
> And finally I have one little surprise for those who have upgraded to
> 2.0. Read about this soon in my next post about “Task Dependency”.
Now that you're full time on MLO I'm really looking forward to colour
coding, multi-selecting and a generally improved tree-list. :)
Cheers,
Charles
Charles Roper
> recently so there are great things coming in MLO soon... :-) Thank you
> again for your support!
my $30 upgrade fee as I consider MLO to be well, well, worth it. In
fact, it's the fifth most used app on my system (was 3rd most used
last month): http://wakoopa.com/charlesroper
I'm even happier now. By way of saying thanks, I've given MLO a good
review on Wakoopa.
> And finally I have one little surprise for those who have upgraded to
> 2.0. Read about this soon in my next post about “Task Dependency”.
jamezzz
I checked MLO out several years ago as a replacement for LB, but it
wasn't quite there yet. Instead I dropped LB and went to some fairly
good web apps. However, I've been using your new beta now for while
and was amazed out how far MLO has come!!
With the new filter features you added, the upcoming dependency
feature AND the ability to synchronize two MLO's via FTP AND the fact
that you'll be doing this full time soon...I finally had to purchase
the Pro version. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with
next!
uh Clem
I've never felt like my money was better spent on software than with
MLO. I'm afraid that the Internet has made some folks really believe
that everything should be free.
You've been doing an amazing job. Like eveyone else here, I'm sure,
I'm delighted to hear that you're going to be doing MLO full time, and
I'm sure it will pay off for you in many ways.
Dependencies is an amazing and welcome surprise. Thanks!
Steve Krug
James Mohr
worth the price. I typically use opensource (read: free) software, but I am
still willing to pay for it. I even donate to some open source projects
because of what I get out of it. In the case of MLO, I would even consider
paying more if specific features were added that I requested. (Which happens
quite a lot with open source) Keep up the great work!
Regards,
jimmo
PS. Hey man! He broke the President!
--
---------------------------------------
"Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are." -- John Wooden
---------------------------------------
Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
--
---------------------------------------
"Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are." -- John Wooden
---------------------------------------
Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
zfk
an early user of MLO, but for about the last year I abandoned it in
favour of Tudumo, which is another nice app. Why? Because I wanted
something with better filtering! I wanted to be able to filter my
ToDo list just for calls, or emails, etc etc and MLO didn't support
that.
Tudumo has great filtering, but it doesn't support subtasks and
automatically making the highest subtask the Next Action once you tick
off the previous task - you need to handle this manually. And the
developer has made it clear that he doesn't intend to provide it. I
now realise how much I have missed this functionality! MLO now does a
great job at both subtasks/auto-next tasks and filtering. So I'm
coming back to MLO and will happily purchase the upgrade. I think
it's fair enough as MLO 2.0 has vastly improved functionality.
There's no perfect app, but MLO after all is still the best I have
found. Custom filters etc mean it is remarkably flexible these days.
Andrey - one request: please remember us poor USB users and give us a
way to enable task dependencies without having to use the registry!!!
Terrific work!
blueSky
a USB stick
Toes_NZ
http://www.mylifeorganized.net/products/my-life-organized/faq.htm
Q: Is it possible to run MLO Desktop from USB thumb drive?
A: Yes. It was specially designed to run from USB drive. It is not
needed to install MyLifeOrganized on a computer to run it. Just run
mlo.exe and it will work. The other files from the installation are
optional.
For example if you work on different computers in office, home and use
notebook you can copy mlo.exe with data file to your USB drive and run
it on any computer you work on. You even do not need administrative
privileges on these computers to run MLO.
Note: for registered version you should also copy your registration
information. For more details see question "I How do I launch a
registered copy of MLO from a removable media"
Jon Ballinger
--
Jon Ballinger
zfk
an early user of MLO, but for about the last year I abandoned it in
favour of Tudumo, which is another nice app. Why? Because I wanted
something with better filtering! I wanted to be able to filter my
ToDo list just for calls, or emails, etc etc and MLO didn't support
that.
Tudumo has great filtering, but it doesn't support subtasks and
automatically making the highest subtask the Next Action once you tick
off the previous task - you need to handle this manually. And the
developer has made it clear that he doesn't intend to provide it. I
now realise how much I have missed this functionality! MLO now does a
great job at both subtasks/auto-next tasks and filtering. So I'm
coming back to MLO and will happily purchase the upgrade. I think
it's fair enough as MLO 2.0 has vastly improved functionality.
There's no perfect app, but MLO after all is still the best I have
found. Custom filters etc mean it is remarkably flexible these days.
way to enable task dependencies without having to use the registry!!!
Terrific work!