[DUG] Delphi Specials

[Jolyon Smith]

Adding green.  J

 

From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz] On Behalf Of David Brennan
Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 09:55
To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List'
Subject: Re: [DUG] Delphi Specials

 

My comments in a lovely purple. ;-)

 

From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jolyon Smith
Sent: Friday, 22 October 2010 8:53 a.m.
To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List'
Subject: Re: [DUG] Delphi Specials

 

Ø  Aw nuts you are just being a stirrer.

 

Why is pointing out facts considered stirring?

 

You obviously have pretty strong feelings about it Jolyon but you jumped on John pretty hard and if I was him I would certainly feel you were being deliberately antagonistic. You didn’t just point out facts, you had an axe to grind.

 

Well, as did John I’d say.  Sauce for the goose too rich for the gander ?

 

 

Ø  What I am saying is do not punish Borland and Embarcadero for making a product that was reliable and well usable for 10+ years.   Reward them by spending a small amount of money to keep them in business. And into the bargain enjoy a much better version of Delphi.

 

How about Embarcadero punishing their customers for not having provided compelling reasons to upgrade?

 

Aren’t they two sides of the same issue? Either Embarcadero/Codegear/Borland haven’t added anything to Delphi since version 5 OR version 5 was so good that you didn’t need any of the things they added.

 

I’m not following the point here.

 

1 – John passed judgement (“nuts”) on somebody elses upgrade (or lack of) decisions based on his OWN experience and position.

 

2 – I merely offered that perhaps other people may be in a different position and that the “nuts” thing is to make judgements on others without taking their position into account (and using inaccurate information in the process).

 

 

You believe the former and refuse to accept that perhaps part of the reason is that v5 was so good.

 

How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

 

The original poster hadn’t upgraded since Delphi 4 – by definition they haven’t felt the need to upgrade.  Arguing about whether they were given reasons to upgrade is meaningless.

 

And I simply pointed out that John’s suggestion that they upgrade NOW was to ignore the fact that Embarcadero have slammed the door on that option for the original poster.  They no longer have the choice of upgrading, they are now faced with having to buy a NEW USER license, from scratch.

 

Is that grinding an axe?  I see it correcting a point of accuracy.

 

On which score:   I myself purchased Delphi 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 licenses for myself.  I now use Delphi 2006 and 2010 licenses provided by my employer but have stopped spending my own money on Delphi.

 

The work I do with Delphi in my own time brings me no financial reward, so the cost of upgrades is just that – a cost.  Not an investment.

 

 

I’m guessing you have never received an OEM version of Windows then? I believe most copies of Windows sold are OEM which are locked (in theory) to the computer they are sold with.

 

That “in theory” part is important.  The “Windows Me” license I upgraded to XP from was “in theory” an OEM license tied to the machine it was purchased with.  But my XP Upgrade installation media of course knew nothing about that and so did not complain when I installed in on the subsequent machines, having provided suitable original media for it to validate upgrade eligibility at that time.

 

Compare and contrast with purchasing a valid license for Delphi and then having to go around the houses and jump through numerous hoops in order for it to acknowledge that yes indeed I am entitled to “activate” and use the software I have bought and paid for.

 

 

And why do you feel so less inclined to reward Microsoft for making a reliable, well usable product when doing so costs far, FAR less than rewarding Borland (who produced a couple of REAL stinkers, products that were neither reliable nor even barely usable, over the years)

 

Sounds like John has purchased 8 copies of Windows, you don’t think that is rewarding them? 

 

In his own words, he is grumpy about it.  I observe that he is grumpy about rewarding Microsoft and yet is happy, and keen to encourage others, to reward Embarcadero whilst simultaneously highlighting that they provide a less generous service in a specific area, in return for that reward yet seemingly perceiving this as providing higher value?

 

Again, is it grinding an axe to mention that Delphi updates cease when a new version is released, while Windows updates do not?

 

 

Borland blew it in a major way around Delphi 8/2005, no question about that and I can understand punishing them for it. 

 

And more recently (at the risk of getting sidetracked) Embarcadero have blown it again (imho) with addressing Unicode and 64-bit separately, creating TWO significant barriers to upgraders and also failing to make good on indications of 64-bit delivery and introducing new priorities and changing roadmaps and product direction without updating those roadmaps until after the fact.

 

 

But at some point it becomes cutting off your nose to spite your face... anyone who develops seriously in Delphi needs Delphi to be a viable commercial product and that means being willing to pony up for some money occasionally in my opinion.

 

You saw the part where I complain that they do not provide an option for me to spend the money that is worth it to me?

 

I WANT to spend money with Embarcadero, but they refuse to make available a product that suits the use to which I wish to put it at a price that is reasonable and that I can afford when set alongside all of the other demands on my financial resources.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.123.net.nz/pipermail/delphi/attachments/20101022/f6037020/attachment-0001.html