Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!ecsvax!mvolo
From: mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael R. Volow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.misc
Subject: Re: Shareware - threat or menace?
Message-ID: <3124@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-May-87 23:28:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.3124
Posted: Sun May 10 23:28:41 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 11-May-87 04:45:50 EDT
References: <18006@sun.uucp> <795@looking.UUCP> <2108@hoptoad.uucp> <571@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 27
Summary: Two kinds of shareware
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:4706 comp.sys.ibm.pc:3935 comp.sys.misc:571



The discussion seems to imply two kinds of shareware: 1) Small utility
programs that do neat things, but which would not truly be marketable
as such as stand-alone programs.  From the comments of the previous
discussants, these programs seem to be written as much for the satis-
faction of the programmer, as for their remunerative potential.  
Satisfied users should show some appreciation (financial) to the
creator of such programs; for without these programs, life with MS-DOS
would be darn awkward.

2) The second type of shareware seems to be a medium-sized commercial
program with some remunerative potential.  And the shareware distrib-
ution of such programs represents an invitation to try out the pack-
age.  In some cases, the power or documentation of the
shareware-distributed package has been restricted by the author to 
encourage remuneration by the user.

In the real world, I suspect that the second type of shareware would
be more likely to stimulate remuneration than the first type; and this
seems to be the experience described by the discussants.  For example,
users might be more likely to register for programs such as Procomm or
PC-Write, than for useful but small utility programs.

--Mike Volow, Psychiatry, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center
  Durham, NC, 27712             919 383 3568
  mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP