Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!aplpy.jhuapl.edu!cfw From: cfw@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Chuck Waltrip) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: 68040 + System 2.0 = :-) Message-ID: <1990Dec21.170917.2443@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> Date: 21 Dec 90 17:09:17 GMT References: <1006@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> Sender: news@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab Lines: 55 In article ty@cypress.cis.ufl.edu (Tyng-Jing Yang) writes: > >>I have just received my 68040 and System 2.0 upgrade. It is great! It is >>fast, and so far, FrameMaker (one of my most important applications) works >>fine after upgrading to 2.0c. Everything runs so much faster! At last, I > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >How much do we have to pay for this 2.0c upgrade ? >I received upgrade notice from Frame Inc. a while ago. >Don't remember the detail, only remember I dumped that letter into trash can >after I figured out I need $400 to get v2.?? upgrade. >Upgrade price is almost the same price ($500)when I buy FrameMaker. > >I felt ripped off later ;-< > >It is unfair that Frame didn't notice their customer they have HIGH upgrade >price. > I recall a previous poster noted that he had purchased FrameMaker, put in a lot of work helping Frame debug FrameMaker so that it would provide the functionality that Frame claimed for it when they sold it to him but then, as I understood the posting, would not provide him with fixes to the version that he had bought except via their expensive upgrade. I never saw a response from Frame about that posting so don't know what their policy is but, if a Frame representative reads this newsgroup, perhaps they'd like to comment on their upgrade policy. I don't know what their policy is and don't care to draw conclusions from this poster or from previous postings I have read. I have seen postings and articles which indicate they have a good product and, when I am in the market, I will check with them directly about their upgrade policy and see if it meets my needs. But a posting to this newsgroup by Frame about their policy would certainly be of interest to me. In general, however, I believe that providing a bug fix to an existing version of a software product is fundamentally different from providing a version that runs on a new version of an operating system. I am not interested in buying into a product that isn't committed to giving me what I paid for. But if I buy into an operating system whose upgrades may require some generally expensive upgrades, I will need to consider that when buying software products. I would hope that software vendors attempting to play in the NeXT market might be somewhat liberal in their upgrade policies but, as this poster points out, its something for us consider when we buy new software. I would also hope that neither the vendors nor the users would pressure NeXT to "stabilize" things prematurely. They are still breaking new ground and asking them to stabilize too soon would likely mean all of us living with (the inevitable) mistakes for a long time. > >-- >=========================================================================== >== Tyng-Jing Yang -- A guilty NeXTCuber == >== == >== NeXT -- A machine that makes me feel guilty not making good use of it == >===========================================================================