Re: RunRev Pricing

[Thomas McGrath III]

Heee Hawww,

I am a Donkey.

Tom

On Feb 25, 2004, at 4:36 PM, Dom wrote:

Thomas McGrath III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

But Mac users can be the most stubborn users in the world.
Hmmm... they were told years ago something like
"rumors of demise of HyperCard is pure b***s***"
Mac users may be as stubborn as a donkey,
they have also the memory of this sympathetic animal ;->
--
Vous parlez français ? faites un tour sur le groupe francophone !
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jetez un oeil sur RevoBlog  !
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Thomas J. McGrath III
SCS
1000 Killarney Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
412-885-8541
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Dom]

Thomas McGrath III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> But Mac users can be the most stubborn users in the world.

Hmmm... they were told years ago something like 
"rumors of demise of HyperCard is pure b***s***"

Mac users may be as stubborn as a donkey, 
they have also the memory of this sympathetic animal ;->

-- 
Vous parlez français ? faites un tour sur le groupe francophone !
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jetez un oeil sur RevoBlog  !
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[John Tenny]

I'm a "Technology Integration Mentor" for 6 universities (Education 
Departments)  on the US West coast, and all have switched to OS X (one 
even moving from Windows to Mac). All have increased wireless 
dramatically on their campuses, and all have portable classroom sets of 
laptops. In my small circle the switch has not been slow at all, with 
all the switching happening this academic year.

John

___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Proportions of OS pre-X & OS X users (was: RunRev Pricing)

[Ian Wood]

My experience in the UK is that the print industry is the most 
resistant, mainly because they often have complex workflows and it 
would take time to reproduce those workflows on OS X.  In addition, the 
print industry is so hard-pressed that they often run very old 
equipment, my local (tiny) print shop runs QuarkXPress 3 on a 75MHz 
Performa!  To run OS X they would have to replace everything from 
scratch, including most of their SCSI peripherals.  X is great if you 
have modern equipment, but I wouldn't want to run it on anything less 
than a 350MHz G3 with lots of RAM.

Basically, if you have a complex workflow, you don't want to risk 
getting it messed up.

Another factor is IT training.  Most computer users have simply 
memorised where the bits they need are.  A good example is Control 
Panels.  Once you have shown someone where the System Preferences are, 
they don't need any further help with that bit, because it is so much 
better laid out.  If you are prepared to get in someone who knows their 
way around and give you a guided tour, it is absurdly easy to upgrade.  
I do a lot of this for local artists, and get more phonecalls about 
!X£&?@ epson printer drivers playing up than i do about the rest of OS 
X put together.  In general, if people are finding that their support 
costs are going up sharply they probably haven't done their 
homework/research/training in the first place, and also do silly things 
like installing every upgrade as soon as it comes out and not waiting a 
week or two to hear about bugs.  That said, there have been some 
decidedly 'beta' quality software releases from Apple recently...

Most people who are prepared to spend a couple of days learning where 
things are love X and wouldn't go back to 9 unless you held them up at 
gunpoint, me included...

For reference, my sales are around 10% Win, 20% OS 

Ian Wood

P.S.  I second the bit about doubling productivity on X, if just 
because of instant wake from sleep and a laptop that hasn't been 
switched off for a month.

On 25 Feb 2004, at 15:16, Thomas McGrath III wrote:

Marc,


But, I stand by my statement: "OSX has proved to me that my 
productivity has doubled since I switched and with each new flavor of 
OSX has only gotten better." I have always been a user that would 
'rather use my computer than fix/twiddle with my computer'. and OSX 
allows for both. I can get more work done now in such a little amount 
of time that my bosses have started to throw way too much work at me 
and expecting me to get it done.


Tom

On Feb 25, 2004, at 10:01 AM, A.C.T. wrote:

Hi, Thomas,

> I think the word was slow at first but now has picked up speed and 
the
> switch is happening very fast now.

that's why I wrote: It is hard to predict. Maybe it is different on 
your side of the Atlantic ;-) The publishers I work with are 
generally "old fashioned", some of them love working in Quark 2 ... 
well, "some" is not the right work, but at least those exist.

I have met a lot of Windows users that were so intrigued by OSX and 
it's productivity increases that they have started to include Macs 
in with their suite of Windows computer only offices. (and most of 
the old arguments they had are no longer there and they are starting 
to admit that , at least to me)
That's fine - and the exact oposite to what I am experiencing. Macs 
are more and more "fleeing" the offices where I walk in and out. 
Personally I can understand that, but that is a completely different 
story.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned: I still think it is 
hard to predict what OS on Mac will be dominant for the next 18 
months. I tend to say it's "Mac OS 

Marc Albrecht
Thomas J. McGrath III
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Thomas McGrath III]

Marc,

Yeah, I can't speak for across the ocean but only here on the east 
coast of the US. If I read your and others responses correctly then I 
would assume that for at least 18 months OS9 will be the dominant OS 
where you are. Most things I have seen are either 18 months behind or 
ahead, like cell phone technology is 18 months behind here and fashion 
is 18 months behind but a lot of music is 18 months ahead. This is not 
always the case but it tends to be true.

SO if OS9 is still the dominant OS now for your market then you may see 
what I am seeing over the next 18 months. Apple is pushing in that 
direction and they can be persuasive. But Mac users can be the most 
stubborn users in the world.

But, I stand by my statement: "OSX has proved to me that my 
productivity has doubled since I switched and with each new flavor of 
OSX has only gotten better." I have always been a user that would 
'rather use my computer than fix/twiddle with my computer'. and OSX 
allows for both. I can get more work done now in such a little amount 
of time that my bosses have started to throw way too much work at me 
and expecting me to get it done.

Case in point: I finished all of my code work on Friday and am just 
turning it in today Wednesday ONLY because I can't let them expect that 
quick of a turn around. That is due to OSX and also to how quickly I 
can work in REV.

.02 + .02 + .02

Tom

On Feb 25, 2004, at 10:01 AM, A.C.T. wrote:

Hi, Thomas,

> I think the word was slow at first but now has picked up speed and 
the
> switch is happening very fast now.

that's why I wrote: It is hard to predict. Maybe it is different on 
your side of the Atlantic ;-) The publishers I work with are generally 
"old fashioned", some of them love working in Quark 2 ... well, "some" 
is not the right work, but at least those exist.

I have met a lot of Windows users that were so intrigued by OSX and 
it's productivity increases that they have started to include Macs in 
with their suite of Windows computer only offices. (and most of the 
old arguments they had are no longer there and they are starting to 
admit that , at least to me)
That's fine - and the exact oposite to what I am experiencing. Macs 
are more and more "fleeing" the offices where I walk in and out. 
Personally I can understand that, but that is a completely different 
story.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned: I still think it is 
hard to predict what OS on Mac will be dominant for the next 18 
months. I tend to say it's "Mac OS 

Marc Albrecht
A.C.T. / level-2
Glinder Str. 2
27432 Ebersdorf
Deutschland
Tel. 04765-830060
Fax. 04765-830064
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Thomas J. McGrath III
SCS
1000 Killarney Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
412-885-8541
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[A.C.T.]

Hi, Thomas,

> I think the word was slow at first but now has picked up speed and the
> switch is happening very fast now.
that's why I wrote: It is hard to predict. Maybe it is different on your 
side of the Atlantic ;-) The publishers I work with are generally "old 
fashioned", some of them love working in Quark 2 ... well, "some" is not 
the right work, but at least those exist.

I have met a lot of Windows users that were so intrigued by OSX and it's 
productivity increases that they have started to include Macs in with 
their suite of Windows computer only offices. (and most of the old 
arguments they had are no longer there and they are starting to admit 
that , at least to me)
That's fine - and the exact oposite to what I am experiencing. Macs are 
more and more "fleeing" the offices where I walk in and out. Personally 
I can understand that, but that is a completely different story.

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned: I still think it is 
hard to predict what OS on Mac will be dominant for the next 18 months. 
I tend to say it's "Mac OS 

Marc Albrecht
A.C.T. / level-2
Glinder Str. 2
27432 Ebersdorf
Deutschland
Tel. 04765-830060
Fax. 04765-830064
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[David Burgun]

At 3:32 PM +0100 25/2/04, A.C.T. wrote:
Hi, Dar,

This is important for me to know.  That some percentage are OS X 
and some greater percentage are pre OS X means little of those of 
the older OS are not spending money.
Speaking from experiences with my customers (publishers, marketing 
agencies) I can say: Many MAC users still refuse to switch to Mac OS 
X because their applications are not available or suffer from first 
version problems. Many other MAC users cannot switch over due to 
incapable hardware resources and prefer to continue using their 
machines (as these are not faulty) with software they know.
Most of those customers of mine that have switched noticed a (partly 
dramatical) increase in support costs for their Mac clients. Some 
have therefor switched back to Mac OS 9, which results in paragraph 
one observations (stability problems with applications and or users 
- user error, please replace!)


With Quark and Photoshop slowly coming along for Mac OS X the 
pressure to switch to X is increasing. The "installed base" of Mac 
machines is quite large at those customers, so I would tend to say: 
You will have Mac OS <=9 users at least for the next 2 years at a 
ratio of at least 40-60% of all installed Macs. It is difficult to 
predict, though, since I do have customers leaving the Mac 
completely for PCs due to cost/support ratios, partly performance 
issues and others. But that has nothing to do with your question, I 
admit.
I have to echo this. As far as I can tell a lot of users just don't 
want to upgrade. In one place I visited the support costs had sky 
rocketed and they switched back to MacOS 9 or risked losing their Mac 
altogether and having PCs forced on them. They were lucky, they 
were/are using G4 that could still boot MacOS 9.

It's also the reluctance to take a step backward in terms of UI, the 
MacOS 9 UI is just so dammed good, especially when emblished with 
extentions that improve productivity. I'm a C/C++ developer and just 
navigating around the disk is MUCH faster under 9. The dock in X is 
just terrible!

It also doesn't help having Command Line snippets all over Mac 
magazines like MacWorld etc. It just makes the Mac look geeky and if 
they wanted geeky they would have gotton a PC.


No, those not switching are not generally refusing to INVEST. They 
are just refusing to go for the latest Xmas-tree just because it's 
new. They have working tools that they have learned to know for 
years - and one pro of the Mac platform always has been: If you know 
one application, you know all of them. Getting Mac users to "love" a 
new system (which Mac OS X is) is harder than getting a PC user to 
admit that a Mac has advantages at all :-)
I agree, I was at a place before Christmas and they had just taken 
Delivery of 5 of the latest G5s and Apple Studio Monitors (the really 
wide ones). When the manager of the department found out they could 
no longer boot MacOS 9, he sent them all back and got PCs and a 
couple of used G4's.

This is happening all over the place and I think the main reason for 
it is the UI. If they had made it more like 9, then I think that 
people would have taken to it more readilly. As it is now, it's like 
driving a car, but all the controls are in weird places, you know you 
can probably get done what you need to get done, but it will take a 
lot more effort, so why bother to change?

Just my 5 cents worth!

Does anyone have a MacOS 9 Run-Rev license they want to sell? Is that allowed?

Your's hopefully...
All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Thomas McGrath III]

FWIW,
This has not been my experience for almost two years now. Almost all 
OS9 users that have actually seen OSX in action(usually from my 
machine) have switched. Photoshop is sound and Quark is coming along. 
Office is Ok but anyone who uses OSX even for a few months 'admits' how 
much more productive it really is. The hardest thing was 'Classic' mode 
support. I only have 4 out of over 4,000 applications that could not 
handle the switch and they were very old apps.
I have met a lot of Windows users that were so intrigued by OSX and 
it's productivity increases that they have started to include Macs in 
with their suite of Windows computer only offices. (and most of the old 
arguments they had are no longer there and they are starting to admit 
that , at least to me)

Before the past two years this was the case but now a days I am having 
a hard time finding OS9 users at my professional clients.

I think the word was slow at first but now has picked up speed and the 
switch is happening very fast now.

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:32 AM, A.C.T. wrote:

With Quark and Photoshop slowly coming along for Mac OS X the pressure 
to switch to X is increasing. The "installed base" of Mac machines is 
quite large at those customers, so I would tend to say: You will have 
Mac OS <=9 users at least for the next 2 years at a ratio of at least 
40-60% of all installed Macs. It is difficult to predict, though, 
since I do have customers leaving the Mac completely for PCs due to 
cost/support ratios, partly performance issues and others. But that 
has nothing to do with your question, I admit.
Thomas J. McGrath III
SCS
1000 Killarney Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15234
412-885-8541
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[A.C.T.]

Hi, Dar,

This is important for me to know.  That some percentage are OS X and 
some greater percentage are pre OS X means little of those of the older 
OS are not spending money.
Speaking from experiences with my customers (publishers, marketing 
agencies) I can say: Many MAC users still refuse to switch to Mac OS X 
because their applications are not available or suffer from first 
version problems. Many other MAC users cannot switch over due to 
incapable hardware resources and prefer to continue using their machines 
(as these are not faulty) with software they know.
Most of those customers of mine that have switched noticed a (partly 
dramatical) increase in support costs for their Mac clients. Some have 
therefor switched back to Mac OS 9, which results in paragraph one 
observations (stability problems with applications and or users - user 
error, please replace!)

With Quark and Photoshop slowly coming along for Mac OS X the pressure 
to switch to X is increasing. The "installed base" of Mac machines is 
quite large at those customers, so I would tend to say: You will have 
Mac OS <=9 users at least for the next 2 years at a ratio of at least 
40-60% of all installed Macs. It is difficult to predict, though, since 
I do have customers leaving the Mac completely for PCs due to 
cost/support ratios, partly performance issues and others. But that has 
nothing to do with your question, I admit.

No, those not switching are not generally refusing to INVEST. They are 
just refusing to go for the latest Xmas-tree just because it's new. They 
have working tools that they have learned to know for years - and one 
pro of the Mac platform always has been: If you know one application, 
you know all of them. Getting Mac users to "love" a new system (which 
Mac OS X is) is harder than getting a PC user to admit that a Mac has 
advantages at all :-)

A.C.T. / level-2
Glinder Str. 2
27432 Ebersdorf
Deutschland
Tel. 04765-830060
Fax. 04765-830064
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Dar Scott]

On Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 01:41 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

A majority of Mac sales across all products I manage are still for 
Classic.
This is important for me to know.  That some percentage are OS X and 
some greater percentage are pre OS X means little of those of the older 
OS are not spending money.

Do others see the same thing as Richard?

Dar Scott

___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Richard Gaskin]

Robert Brenstein wrote:
But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are 
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the older 
Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for the 
defunct OS 9.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation


I was going to let this remark pass, but we have a mixed bag of readers 
on the list and it comes as a bit of surprise to hear it from you, 
Richard. OS9 may be defunct but last January Steve Jobs stated that OSX 
accounts for only (well, he said already) 40% of Mac users. For 
marketting, the technical proveness of a system is less relevant than 
the size of that market segment and it seems that majority of Mac users 
are still with the older platform. That is quite a few people. May be 
your products are addressed to the upper group which switched, but this 
is not true in general. W98 has been defunct even longer and it is still 
fully supported by most software vendors (granted, it is somewhat easier 
than in case of OS9/OSX).
I'm just preaching the Steve gospel.  A majority of Mac sales across all 
products I manage are still for Classic.  Maybe I should have used 
"retired" rather than "defunct".  Beyond that, please don't shoot the 
messenger: it's Apple pushing to get rid of Classic, not me.  I rather 
like OS 9.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FourthWorld.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Robert Brenstein]

But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are 
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the 
older Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for 
the defunct OS 9.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
I was going to let this remark pass, but we have a mixed bag of 
readers on the list and it comes as a bit of surprise to hear it from 
you, Richard. OS9 may be defunct but last January Steve Jobs stated 
that OSX accounts for only (well, he said already) 40% of Mac users. 
For marketting, the technical proveness of a system is less relevant 
than the size of that market segment and it seems that majority of 
Mac users are still with the older platform. That is quite a few 
people. May be your products are addressed to the upper group which 
switched, but this is not true in general. W98 has been defunct even 
longer and it is still fully supported by most software vendors 
(granted, it is somewhat easier than in case of OS9/OSX).

Robert
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Doug Lerner]

Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X are completely different systems. OS X is Unix, in
fact.

doug

On 2/24/04 5:11 AM, "Marian Petrides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Why?
> 
> Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS
> X be separate?
> 
> I hate to get back into the pricing debate again, but once again the
> pricing model defies logic.  Most frustrating.  (And, no it's not
> relevant to me, I bought the whole magilla and glad I am thank you!)
> 
> M
> 
> On Feb 23, 2004, at 2:55 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> 
>> On 2/23/04 10:35 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> 
>>> But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are
>>> included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the older
>>> Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for the
>>> defunct OS 9.
>> 
>> Actually, it's a separate license.
>> 
>> --
>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>> ___
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>> 
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Marian Petrides]

Otay.  Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

M
On Feb 23, 2004, at 4:43 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 2/23/04 2:11 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:

Why?
Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and 
OS X be separate?
Probably because the Mac builds are two separate engines, which 
require different compiles and separate amounts of time and resources 
to put together. They really are different products and they need to 
be downloaded separately. Combined in the OS 9 engine are versions 
that work with both 68K and PPC versions of Mac OS; so for classic Mac 
you actually get dual duty.

The Windows product is a single unified engine, requiring only one 
build cycle, that works with all Win32 products. If it were possible 
to combine Classic Mac OS and OS X into a single engine, then the Mac 
engine would more closely approximate the Windows engine -- but this 
can't be done.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[J. Landman Gay]

On 2/23/04 2:11 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:

Why?

Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS X 
be separate?
Probably because the Mac builds are two separate engines, which require 
different compiles and separate amounts of time and resources to put 
together. They really are different products and they need to be 
downloaded separately. Combined in the OS 9 engine are versions that 
work with both 68K and PPC versions of Mac OS; so for classic Mac you 
actually get dual duty.

The Windows product is a single unified engine, requiring only one build 
cycle, that works with all Win32 products. If it were possible to 
combine Classic Mac OS and OS X into a single engine, then the Mac 
engine would more closely approximate the Windows engine -- but this 
can't be done.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Alain Bois]

I'm OK
Alain
Le 23 févr. 04, à 21:11, Marian Petrides a écrit :

Why?

Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS 
X be separate?

I hate to get back into the pricing debate again, but once again the 
pricing model defies logic.  Most frustrating.  (And, no it's not 
relevant to me, I bought the whole magilla and glad I am thank you!)

M

On Feb 23, 2004, at 2:55 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

On 2/23/04 10:35 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are 
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the 
older Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for 
the defunct OS 9.
Actually, it's a separate license.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Marian Petrides]

Why?

Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS 
X be separate?

I hate to get back into the pricing debate again, but once again the 
pricing model defies logic.  Most frustrating.  (And, no it's not 
relevant to me, I bought the whole magilla and glad I am thank you!)

M

On Feb 23, 2004, at 2:55 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

On 2/23/04 10:35 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are 
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the older 
Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for the 
defunct OS 9.
Actually, it's a separate license.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[J. Landman Gay]

On 2/23/04 10:35 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are 
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the older 
Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for the 
defunct OS 9.
Actually, it's a separate license.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: RunRev Pricing

[Richard Gaskin]

My company just bought a Studio version of RunRev for MacOS X, 
> which is fine for my work Mac. However at home I have an older
> Mac that doesn't support MacOS X and I would like to be able to
> run RunRev under MacOS 9.2.2 on that machine.
However, it looks like the only way I can do this is to pay $149
> for an Express version, making a total of $488 to just give me
> the ability to run on two OSes.
Is there some way I could get a deal on a version that just runs
> under MacOS 9? If not, I'm not sure I want to pay $149 and so I
> probably won't buy it and so I won't get into RR as quickly and
> Runtime Revolution Ltd won't make *any* money
I think a better pricing plan would be to charge a base price for
> the RR Engine, then a price for each Platform that you want to run
> on and another price for each platform that you want to generate
> code for.
Agreed.

But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are 
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the older 
Classic.   I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for the 
defunct OS 9.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FourthWorld.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RunRev Pricing

[David Burgun]

Hi All,

The pricing for RunRev seems odd to me, the prices currently on offer 
are as follows:

Enterprise $999	Runs and Generates code for MacOS X, MacOS 9, Windows 
(many versions) and Linux.
Studio $299	Runs on one OS Platform and Generates code for MacOS 
X, MacOS 9, Windows (many versions) and Linux.
Express $149	Runs on one Platform and generates code for that one platform.

My company just bought a Studio version of RunRev for MacOS X, which 
is fine for my work Mac. However at home I have an older Mac that 
doesn't support MacOS X and I would like to be able to run RunRev 
under MacOS 9.2.2 on that machine.

However, it looks like the only way I can do this is to pay $149 for 
an Express version, making a total of $488 to just give me the 
ability to run on two OSes.

Is there some way I could get a deal on a version that just runs 
under MacOS 9? If not, I'm not sure I want to pay $149 and so I 
probably won't buy it and so I won't get into RR as quickly and 
Runtime Revolution Ltd won't make *any* money

I think a better pricing plan would be to charge a base price for the 
RR Engine, then a price for each Platform that you want to run on and 
another price for each platform that you want to generate code for.

I really don't been to run RR on Windows or Linux or any of those 
other platforms, but I *might* want to generate code for them, as it 
is, I would have to pay a lot more to get something I don't need if I 
were to buy the Enterprise edition.

Just my 5 cents worth!!!

All the Best and Thanks RR for making one of the best development 
tools I have had the pleasure to work with!

Dave

___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution