Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.apps:1320 comp.sys.mac.misc:2647 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!world!boris From: boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Norton Utils and Excel Message-ID: <1990Aug29.042945.13154@world.std.com> Date: 29 Aug 90 04:29:45 GMT References: <1538@ntmtv.UUCP> <679@dbase.A-T.COM> <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com> <1990Aug28.144006.17059@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Lines: 78 isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >In article <1990Aug23.070322.9301@world.std.com> boris@world.std.com (Boris Levitin) writes: >>Aside from the practicalities of this particular issue, I wonder why certain >>users refuse to upgrade to current versions of their software. I understand >>upgrading is sometimes expensive, but it's the only way the publisher can >>fix bugs, compatibility problems and design flaws, and to add new features. > . . . . . . >>of the publishers of well-behaved programs such as Norton Utils to accomodate >>outdated, ill-mannered software such as Excel 1.5 just because some NUM >>customers insist on running this relic. >>Boris Levitin >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com >>Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>(The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide >>with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.) >Perhaps the expense of upgrading ($99 for Excel, up to $125 for some programs) >isn't too bad whn you are upgrading 1 or even 2. But when >you have a department full of people, even a small one with >only 30 or so, and you don't have a lot of money availible >it quickly adds up. let's see, 30 users times an >upgrade price of $100 times maybe 5 packages a year.. >(Excel, Cricket Graph,MacDraw->MacDraw II, Word, PageMaker >the list goes on and on) >just that quick example is $15000. just for upgrades. >No thank you, I think I'll struggle along and instead use >old system version that won't crash the software. >(and free/share ware to replace commercial packages whenever >possible) >-- >Mike Schechter, Computer Engineer,Institute Sensory Research, Syracuse Univ. >InterNet: Mike_Schechter@isr.syr.edu isr@rodan.syr.edu Bitnet: SENSORY@SUNRISE To the best of my knowledge, there are no viable public-domain alternatives to the programs you've listed. Your point about the expense of upgrading (which could be made about the expense of purchasing software in the first place), however, is quite correct. The high prices of software, along with the fact that (with the exception of a very few copy-protected titles) it's infinitely copiable and the license conditions - unenforceable, are responsible for most software piracy. That's why many major publishers are offering site licenses and site upgrades (unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't seem to feel that way). Still, while there will always be organizations that can barely afford the electricity bill, most serious Excel users, especially at work, would find that $99 is a reasonable price for the improvements and increased productivity provided by version 2.2 (the same goes for most other major upgrades). And when you choose to "struggle along" with old applications and system software, you're acting inconsistently with the significant additional investment you made when you first bought Macintoshes. Surely if money was *that* tight, and quality - a priority definitely subordinated to it, DOS and Windows (or just plain old DOS) would have been even better choices? At the risk of sounding like one of those screw-the-rest-of-the-world Mac elitists led by John Dvorak, what's the point of buying a Maserati and ruining its engine on low-octane fuel, which is essentially what you're doing? At any rate, to get back to the discussion that started all this: when you choose to run obsolete programs and system software, you have to know the risks of doing so: that they will clash with Apple's guidelines, each other and guideline-compliant new software. I feel that as a customer, you do not have a moral right to ask publishers to support outdated versions ad infinitum (or, since the computer industry moves so fast, even ad a couple of years from now). When your no-longer-supported programs interfere with each other, you might seek assistance on Usenet or elsewhere; it would be a brave but ultimately ineffectual attempt, reminiscent of one of those movies about survival after a nuclear holocaust. Boris Levitin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WGBH Public Broadcasting, Boston boris@world.std.com Audience & Marketing Research wgbx!boris_levitin@athena.mit.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily coincide with those of my employer or anyone else. The WGBH tag is for ID only.)