Idea to Increase VDF Exposure

[Mk@p3rfect]

Hi All,
I use a lot of ActiveX componants, and consequently visit a lot of componant
supplier's websites. Whenever I visit these sites, as a matter of course I
always check out the supported platforms for the the controls, and I would
imagine that a lot of other NON-VDF developers do the same. It strikes me
that if DAW were to contact these suppliers and maybe offer a Copy of VDF at
a much discounted price in exhange for putting a link to DAW on the
suppliers website. This could possibly lead to a number of advantages for
DAW, The Componant suppliers and VDF developers, alike:

eg:
1: DAW would undoubtedly gain some revenue which they might not otherwise
get.
2: Non VDF Developers looking for controls would see the link to DAW. Many
would I am sure, follow it, if only out of curiosity. This is surely a
target market for DAW, and a perfect way to get exposure to the right
people.
3. Although FlexCom2 is now brilliant at handling ActiveX, virtually no
supplers support it. Yet many controls work "Out of the box." If the
componant suppliers could be persuaded to get a copy of VDF many would be
tempted to test it with their controls. After all VDF would become another
market sector for them. This would lead to more support for VDF developers,
many of whom are put off from using acxtiveX due to the lack of support from
the suppliers.

Maybe DAW could even offer some help to suppliers in testing their controls
under VDF.

I might be that DAW has already tried this, but I thought it worth a post
anyway.

Best Regards
Mk

[David Martinko]

When I have had to purchase ActiveX controls, I have offered to supply the
matching samples they provide for VB but in VDF. No one has taken me up on
my offer yet.

--
David Martinko
Redeemed Software
248-535-7495
RedeemedSoftware(SHIFT+2)Hotmail(PERIOD)com
www.redeemedsoftware.com


"Mk" <Mk@p3rfect.net> wrote in message
news:5pxBr4TrFHA.3960@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> Hi All,
> I use a lot of ActiveX componants, and consequently visit a lot of
> componant
> supplier's websites. Whenever I visit these sites, as a matter of course I
> always check out the supported platforms for the the controls, and I would
> imagine that a lot of other NON-VDF developers do the same. It strikes me
> that if DAW were to contact these suppliers and maybe offer a Copy of VDF
> at
> a much discounted price in exhange for putting a link to DAW on the
> suppliers website. This could possibly lead to a number of advantages for
> DAW, The Componant suppliers and VDF developers, alike:
>
> eg:
> 1: DAW would undoubtedly gain some revenue which they might not otherwise
> get.
> 2: Non VDF Developers looking for controls would see the link to DAW. Many
> would I am sure, follow it, if only out of curiosity. This is surely a
> target market for DAW, and a perfect way to get exposure to the right
> people.
> 3. Although FlexCom2 is now brilliant at handling ActiveX, virtually no
> supplers support it. Yet many controls work "Out of the box." If the
> componant suppliers could be persuaded to get a copy of VDF many would be
> tempted to test it with their controls. After all VDF would become another
> market sector for them. This would lead to more support for VDF
> developers,
> many of whom are put off from using acxtiveX due to the lack of support
> from
> the suppliers.
>
> Maybe DAW could even offer some help to suppliers in testing their
> controls
> under VDF.
>
> I might be that DAW has already tried this, but I thought it worth a post
> anyway.
>
> Best Regards
> Mk
>
>
>

[Mk@p3rfect]

Hi David,
Whenever I've asked for help (which admittedly if not that often) I always
point out the VDF user Base (with a little embelishment) and point them at
the DAW website, where more than one has downloaded a demo version in order
to help. In fact Xceed asked me for a deploy write-up which they placed on
their website and advertised VDF as a supported platform. However once the
eval had expired, they removed it. I think it depends very much on the
individual company, which is true of any sales pitch, but with DAW
approaching them, they would probably have more impact than a single
developer, and there are a lot of them (activex manufacturers) out there to
target..

Best Regards
Mk

"David Martinko" <RedeemedSoftware@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6g5t2HVrFHA.1880@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> When I have had to purchase ActiveX controls, I have offered to supply the
> matching samples they provide for VB but in VDF. No one has taken me up on
> my offer yet.
>
> --
> David Martinko
> Redeemed Software
> 248-535-7495
> RedeemedSoftware(SHIFT+2)Hotmail(PERIOD)com
> www.redeemedsoftware.com
>
>
> "Mk" <Mk@p3rfect.net> wrote in message
> news:5pxBr4TrFHA.3960@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> > Hi All,
> > I use a lot of ActiveX componants, and consequently visit a lot of
> > componant
> > supplier's websites. Whenever I visit these sites, as a matter of course
I
> > always check out the supported platforms for the the controls, and I
would
> > imagine that a lot of other NON-VDF developers do the same. It strikes
me
> > that if DAW were to contact these suppliers and maybe offer a Copy of
VDF
> > at
> > a much discounted price in exhange for putting a link to DAW on the
> > suppliers website. This could possibly lead to a number of advantages
for
> > DAW, The Componant suppliers and VDF developers, alike:
> >
> > eg:
> > 1: DAW would undoubtedly gain some revenue which they might not
otherwise
> > get.
> > 2: Non VDF Developers looking for controls would see the link to DAW.
Many
> > would I am sure, follow it, if only out of curiosity. This is surely a
> > target market for DAW, and a perfect way to get exposure to the right
> > people.
> > 3. Although FlexCom2 is now brilliant at handling ActiveX, virtually no
> > supplers support it. Yet many controls work "Out of the box." If the
> > componant suppliers could be persuaded to get a copy of VDF many would
be
> > tempted to test it with their controls. After all VDF would become
another
> > market sector for them. This would lead to more support for VDF
> > developers,
> > many of whom are put off from using acxtiveX due to the lack of support
> > from
> > the suppliers.
> >
> > Maybe DAW could even offer some help to suppliers in testing their
> > controls
> > under VDF.
> >
> > I might be that DAW has already tried this, but I thought it worth a
post
> > anyway.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Mk
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Anders Öhrt]

IMO the main problem of VDF exposure is that it's a strictly commersial
language, one can't really use it privately. Languages like C, VB, Java,
etc, all have huge hordes of people using it on their free time, and this
makes the languages a success in the commersial world too since people know
how to program in those languages. When we hire a new programmer, we know
that with 99% certainty he's never heard of VDF.

I have often wanted to write some application on my free time that I would
publish for free (either open source, or closed). But, with VDF that's
impossible since there is no free runtime. And of course, if there was a
free runtime, what would keep companies from using it instead of paying to
DAW for this great product?

My thought have been towards a strictly single user version, no CK (strictly
native DB), and probably no WebApp (or one with a low user limit). Supplying
this 100% free would get lots of people using VDF privatly in their
projects, and via this influence their friends, collegues and bosses to look
into this great framework instead of going with the standard languages.

// Anders

[Aaron Smith]

Anders Öhrt wrote:

> My thought have been towards a strictly single user version, no CK (strictly
> native DB), and probably no WebApp (or one with a low user limit). Supplying
> this 100% free would get lots of people using VDF privatly in their
> projects, and via this influence their friends, collegues and bosses to look
> into this great framework instead of going with the standard languages.
>
> // Anders
>
>

There is one problem with that. Why would someone choose a free version
that is single user, low user limit webapp, and no CK over the free
versions of Microsoft Visual Studio? The express editions offer a lot
more functionality than that... That doesn't even include the open
source IDE's that allow you to fully develop apps for enterprise
applications for free...

The free runtime and options with the pay for a great IDE approach is
really the only way to compete in this specific area. If you give
someone the ability to create a program in notepad and be able to
compile it for free and run it anywhere will spark the interests of a
lot of people, especially since you have free IDE's for VDF right now.
Even if you can't do screen design graphically, you will still get more
weekend warrior's than you get now, which is none. Once they get hooked
on it, they will tell their employer about it... They can then download
a demo and see how great it is and then purchase it.

But that is all moot since the runtime isn't free, and that is what is
keeping a lot of current developers in their current languages..

Aaron

[Anders Öhrt]

> There is one problem with that. Why would someone choose a free version
> that is single user, low user limit webapp, and no CK over the free
> versions of Microsoft Visual Studio? The express editions offer a lot more
> functionality than that... That doesn't even include the open source IDE's
> that allow you to fully develop apps for enterprise applications for
> free...

Well, I was trying to think of something that is both acceptable by DAW as
well as giving the new developers something to use. Of course the best
version from a developers perspective would be to change VDF so be freely
distributable like the MSVS and charge for the package and support, but that
would also drastically cut DAW's cashflow so I don't think that is a
solution they would accept.

// Anders

[Larry R Pint]

Didn't they (DAW) try free runtimes with VDF 4 (or was it 5) through 7?
It was a business model that they couldn't make go at the time. What
would be different now? It didn't seem to lead to the massive influx of
developers that would be needed to make it work.

I would certainly like to see the user base grow. And I'm all for free
runtimes (at least single user). But the economic viability of DAW is
of greater concern. All the free DAW products in the world doesn't do
me any good if they (DAW) go out of business.

Larry Pint


Anders Öhrt wrote:
>>There is one problem with that. Why would someone choose a free version
>>that is single user, low user limit webapp, and no CK over the free
>>versions of Microsoft Visual Studio? The express editions offer a lot more
>>functionality than that... That doesn't even include the open source IDE's
>>that allow you to fully develop apps for enterprise applications for
>>free...
>
>
> Well, I was trying to think of something that is both acceptable by DAW as
> well as giving the new developers something to use. Of course the best
> version from a developers perspective would be to change VDF so be freely
> distributable like the MSVS and charge for the package and support, but that
> would also drastically cut DAW's cashflow so I don't think that is a
> solution they would accept.
>
> // Anders
>
>

[Aaron Smith]

Larry Pint wrote:
> Didn't they (DAW) try free runtimes with VDF 4 (or was it 5) through 7?
> It was a business model that they couldn't make go at the time. What
> would be different now? It didn't seem to lead to the massive influx of
> developers that would be needed to make it work.
>
> I would certainly like to see the user base grow. And I'm all for free
> runtimes (at least single user). But the economic viability of DAW is
> of greater concern. All the free DAW products in the world doesn't do
> me any good if they (DAW) go out of business.
>
> Larry Pint

I have no idea what the financial or economic condition of DAW is. I
don't know whether they are growing, or shrinking. That is really
something we really don't know without seeing factual numbers...
However, can a business that relies on deveopers survive on a small
developer base indefinately without accumulating more developers?
Without forcing prices to go up with every release, the only way to
combat high costs is to increase sales. The only way to increase sales
is to accumulate more developers. With the severe price drops of
Microsoft's platform when they come out with the Visual Studio 2005,
what is DAW going to do to try to keep their developers?

I will admit though, that a lot of Dataflex developers are very loyal,
so losing developers probably isn't going to be that much of a problem.
But what about gaining developers? If someone is switching languages or
developing a new product, what are they going to do to try to get that
developer to go with DAW products instead of someone else?

Someone else just recently mentioned that when they hire a new developer
they can guarentee they never heard of Dataflex before... If that's the
case all over, then without the individual developers promoting DAW, how
are they going to increase their sales?

When I was hired into the company I work for now, I never heard of it
before the interview, and I had been in the business for a while... I
had to run home that night and do research in it to even make sure I
wanted the job...

Granted, this is all hypothetical and based on whether or not DAW is
growing, shrinking or just staying the course, but if they not growing,
then this is the kind of stuff that needs to change, or we may not have
to worry about this conversation. Quite frankly, when I started this
job, I wondered if it was just going to be a waste of time to learn it
and if they (DAW) were going to be out of business in a few years...
Then again, these are all reasons why the company I work for is making a
switch...

[Marco]

Hi,

If there would be a free runtime, I would have at least 5 odd
applications out there for mates and friends and perhaps even one in
the freeware market.

There is an unlimited single user distribution licence, but my boss
would not pay for it, and why would I... Just to help friends out?

Perhaps a model like the following would work:
All licensing of studio and runtime as it is, but a new Free Single
User licence. It is a bit different though so this is what I'm
imagining:
If a registered VDF developer wants to have one such runtime, they
have to login on DAW's website, complete some information like; type
of application, target market, declare they are not charging for the
program and not for maintenance etc. Then a licence file gets
returned. The developer has to compile the licence file into his/her
application.
When the deployed application is started first time, it contacts DAW
website for 'activation'. Every 10 odd times it is started, it sends a
'I'm still used' message to DAW.

Advantage for Developers:
They can develop prototypes, app's for friends, app's for their own
bookkeeping, app's for their neighbors stamp collection etc etc. Even
downloadable app's for all sorts of things, as long as it is not
charged for.

Advantage for DAW:
+ Usage figures. Exposure. Awareness of users that they use a VDF
product. A counter on the website, that DAW is installed on xxx PC's
around the world.
+ A push for upgrade. The new licence request would only be available
on the newest VDF version.
+ Developers would spend more time using the product (after hours), so
more testing, more smarts more sharing of code, more newsgroup
traffic.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,
Marco


On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:40:21 -0500, Larry Pint
<larry.pint@ntuminc.com> wrote:

>Didn't they (DAW) try free runtimes with VDF 4 (or was it 5) through 7?
> It was a business model that they couldn't make go at the time. What
>would be different now? It didn't seem to lead to the massive influx of
>developers that would be needed to make it work.
>
>I would certainly like to see the user base grow. And I'm all for free
>runtimes (at least single user). But the economic viability of DAW is
>of greater concern. All the free DAW products in the world doesn't do
>me any good if they (DAW) go out of business.
>
>Larry Pint
>
>
>Anders Öhrt wrote:
>>>There is one problem with that. Why would someone choose a free version
>>>that is single user, low user limit webapp, and no CK over the free
>>>versions of Microsoft Visual Studio? The express editions offer a lot more
>>>functionality than that... That doesn't even include the open source IDE's
>>>that allow you to fully develop apps for enterprise applications for
>>>free...
>>
>>
>> Well, I was trying to think of something that is both acceptable by DAW as
>> well as giving the new developers something to use. Of course the best
>> version from a developers perspective would be to change VDF so be freely
>> distributable like the MSVS and charge for the package and support, but that
>> would also drastically cut DAW's cashflow so I don't think that is a
>> solution they would accept.
>>
>> // Anders
>>
>>

[Anders Öhrt]

> Didn't they (DAW) try free runtimes with VDF 4 (or was it 5) through 7?
> It was a business model that they couldn't make go at the time. What
> would be different now? It didn't seem to lead to the massive influx of
> developers that would be needed to make it work.

There were no runtimes licenses until VDF8 (that's one reason we still have
VDF7 customers), that's true. But, the IDE did still cost (as did the CK
licenses). DAW needs a way to get people something that is 100% free to
develop and distribute in, in order to get more people using VDF. But, my
point is that those that can afford it (businesses) should still pay. The
VDF7 model made the developers pay for the IDE, and then the developers
charged their customers. Now developers still pay, but the customers also
pay DAW. This is fine, I don't want that to change for the commecial side of
things. That's why I was thinking of ways to force businesses to stay with
the current model while letting people do private programming. Having a
somewhat crippled framework that does what most people need is better that
no framework at all. Once you need a real DB, multi users, etc, you are
forced to go with the commercial version.


> All the free DAW products in the world doesn't do me any good if they
> (DAW) go out of business.

That's the problem, IMO DAW will go out of business eventually. There are
more and more people moving to C++/C#/Java, and fewer people moving to VDF.
Of course I have no figures of this, it's my "feeling" of what's happening.

DAW might survive this by leaning on it's consulting and other tools, but
the framework is the backbone which we want to survive.

// Anders

[Anders Öhrt]

> Perhaps a model like the following would work:
> All licensing of studio and runtime as it is, but a new Free Single
> User licence.

But that would not get us more developers, which is the real problem. Or, do
you mean the compiler but not the IDE could be free?

I like the rest of the idea though.

// Anders

[Fred]

I don't think we need something that is 100% free to develop, but yes 100%
free to distribute in single user !

We also still have customers in VDF7 ... and oh surprise, they are all have
single user runtimes !? So it's no problem to ask customers to pay for a
multi-user license, they easily understand this and when I see Delphi's
application with Paradox databases, Dataflex DB and C/S is a much better
solution for multi-user applications !

We never installed single user licenses after VDF7, minimum 3-user licences
even on standalone PC's ! There are 2 reason for this : DAW was making it
too complicated for single user licenses and customers really don't
understand why they have to pay an application AND a license to use it only
on one workstation, and, pay each year an upgrade price !!! So we allways
install a 3-user and explain that they can make remote access or that they
are good for the next years if there is one day a second PC. But, this is
only ok for us because we have a big application and don't need to sell it
at hundreds of customers.

I can imagine that many developers would join VDF in there is a possibility
to distribute their application for free in single user mode. This exists in
the past for DF !!! Why not doing the same for VDF ... at a reasonnable
price ? This is a commercial action that DAW must do if they want to have
more developers. But I don't think they are loosing money by doing this :
yes perhaps they loose all payments for single user licences but in another
way they will sell more IDE's to new developers. And, I also think that DAW
is making the bigger part of money on multi-user runtimes and this will
stay. These new developers will someday also have multi-user applications to
install, so ... market place is growing.

NB1: would be interresting to know DAW's point of view on 100% free single
user licenses
NB2: sorry for my bad english

Fred THOMAS
Eicher B.C. (Belgique)


"Anders Öhrt" <Anders.Ohrt@capslock.se> a écrit dans le message de news:
CaUH#3rrFHA.632@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
>
> > Didn't they (DAW) try free runtimes with VDF 4 (or was it 5) through 7?
> > It was a business model that they couldn't make go at the time. What
> > would be different now? It didn't seem to lead to the massive influx of
> > developers that would be needed to make it work.
>
> There were no runtimes licenses until VDF8 (that's one reason we still
have
> VDF7 customers), that's true. But, the IDE did still cost (as did the CK
> licenses). DAW needs a way to get people something that is 100% free to
> develop and distribute in, in order to get more people using VDF. But, my
> point is that those that can afford it (businesses) should still pay. The
> VDF7 model made the developers pay for the IDE, and then the developers
> charged their customers. Now developers still pay, but the customers also
> pay DAW. This is fine, I don't want that to change for the commecial side
of
> things. That's why I was thinking of ways to force businesses to stay with
> the current model while letting people do private programming. Having a
> somewhat crippled framework that does what most people need is better that
> no framework at all. Once you need a real DB, multi users, etc, you are
> forced to go with the commercial version.
>
>
> > All the free DAW products in the world doesn't do me any good if they
> > (DAW) go out of business.
>
> That's the problem, IMO DAW will go out of business eventually. There are
> more and more people moving to C++/C#/Java, and fewer people moving to
VDF.
> Of course I have no figures of this, it's my "feeling" of what's
happening.
>
> DAW might survive this by leaning on it's consulting and other tools, but
> the framework is the backbone which we want to survive.
>
> // Anders
>
>

[David Martinko]

I wouldn't mind if a single user license was free.... for non-commercial
software. If you want to develop commercial software then you should
purchase a set of unlimited single user licenses. The free license can have
a popup dialog advertisement from DAW stating that the program they are
running is using a non-commercial license and if they purchased the program
they are using they should contact DAW and report the piracy.

--
David Martinko
Redeemed Software
248-535-7495
RedeemedSoftware(SHIFT+2)Hotmail(PERIOD)com
www.redeemedsoftware.com

"Greg Sergeant" <gsergeant@specialservicesystems.com> wrote in message
news:10MGX9wrFHA.1880@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
>I kind of pushed for a single-user freeware license years ago but it didn't
>fly. My thoughts were like yours. If people are downloading and using
>freeware apps that say 'Created with Visual Dataflex', it is going to stir
>curiousity and publicity from the ground up. I believe that is one of the
>things that made VB such a hit. Everyone and their dog was out there
>writing freeware/shareware apps in VB.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Anders Öhrt wrote:
>>>Perhaps a model like the following would work:
>>>All licensing of studio and runtime as it is, but a new Free Single
>>>User licence.
>>
>>
>> But that would not get us more developers, which is the real problem. Or,
>> do you mean the compiler but not the IDE could be free?
>>
>> I like the rest of the idea though.
>>
>> // Anders

[Greg Sergeant]

I kind of pushed for a single-user freeware license years ago but it
didn't fly. My thoughts were like yours. If people are downloading and
using freeware apps that say 'Created with Visual Dataflex', it is going
to stir curiousity and publicity from the ground up. I believe that is
one of the things that made VB such a hit. Everyone and their dog was
out there writing freeware/shareware apps in VB.

Greg



Anders Öhrt wrote:
>>Perhaps a model like the following would work:
>>All licensing of studio and runtime as it is, but a new Free Single
>>User licence.
>
>
> But that would not get us more developers, which is the real problem. Or, do
> you mean the compiler but not the IDE could be free?
>
> I like the rest of the idea though.
>
> // Anders
>
>

[Peter Brooks]

I have been caught up in this issue since vdf8 came along. I have a product
which gets lots of exposure in the market place. I sell it via the Web for
as low as $69.00 (Via Downloads.com). I do not want to keep too much paper
work expecially license information. I do not want to support the low priced
version, so the install has to work flawlessly. The app is still in vdf7. I
have stopped paying for upgrades a long time ago. So that is revenue DAW
does not get. If single-user licenses were free I would continue with the
subscription.
Products like mine could give DAW exposure. For me to upgrade the product I
would also need to know that my app can install with a built in license (no
calling a second install) Unfortuantly I chose a cheap-skate market to get
into so do not earrn much money from this App. There is an opportunity for
DAW and myself to get this app out to thousands of end-users.

Perhaps DAW could do a deal to get their logo on my Web site. We have a lot
of hits. In google type in Membership Software and I am on page one.

Peter Brooks
www.membershipadmin.com

[Marco]

Peter,

I think even in return, DAW could have a link to your site. I think it
is a perfect app for showing a lot of the features that are in VDF so
'simple' to do.

Regards
Marco


Peter Brooks wrote:
> I have been caught up in this issue since vdf8 came along. I have a product
> which gets lots of exposure in the market place. I sell it via the Web for
> as low as $69.00 (Via Downloads.com). I do not want to keep too much paper
> work expecially license information. I do not want to support the low priced
> version, so the install has to work flawlessly. The app is still in vdf7. I
> have stopped paying for upgrades a long time ago. So that is revenue DAW
> does not get. If single-user licenses were free I would continue with the
> subscription.
> Products like mine could give DAW exposure. For me to upgrade the product I
> would also need to know that my app can install with a built in license (no
> calling a second install) Unfortuantly I chose a cheap-skate market to get
> into so do not earrn much money from this App. There is an opportunity for
> DAW and myself to get this app out to thousands of end-users.
>
> Perhaps DAW could do a deal to get their logo on my Web site. We have a lot
> of hits. In google type in Membership Software and I am on page one.
>
> Peter Brooks
> www.membershipadmin.com
>
>

[Chris.V]

There are many different markets out there.
Big business does not mind paying big dollars for applications and CKs. In
fact it appears that they expect it and often refuse to buy if it sold at a
cheap price.
Small to medium businesses do. They count their pennies.
When you have to compete against delphi multi-user products and the like in
the sub $250 (Aussie Dollar) vertical market area, DF with run-times are a
no-win.

These are some of the problems runtimes pose for us...

1. Having to maintain hundreds of licences would be a nightmare and even if
you buy a multi-seat distribution licence for future sales you have to guess
how many sales you are going to make in the next year or you waste seat
payments. Once these extra seats are sold, I believe that you have to go
back to purchasing individual licences, because you are unable to add seats
to the original multi-seat licence. Please correct me if I am wrong.
2. What happens to clients who stop using the system under a multi-seat
distribution licence. You have to keep paying for them?
3. Many of our clients are seasonal and only use the product for several
months of a year. They are not allowed a pro-rata on the licence fees.

The above are the main reasons why we have stuck with VDF7 and not moved
forward. We started down this path when DAW introduced free runtimes in VDF4
and it appears that we are trapped here with the re-introduction of runtimes
in VDF8.
Sure you can explain to your customers that with versions after VDF7 you
have all these nice features, but if they are not required or used in our
product then the customer does not see any value for the additional money
and will move to a cheaper competitor.

From my point of view and I assume many low-cost vertical market developers
who developed in VDF4/5/6 or 7, we need a 4 user free distribution developer
licence to move forward. As our client's companies grow they are already
using our systems and more likely (and agreeable) to purchase runtimes.
Getting them to purchase a package is the biggest step. If a free to
distribute 4 user developer licence was introduced VDF will get used by a
lot more full time, part time and hobby programmers in a lot more small to
medium businesses. DAW still get the developer purchase price and DF gets
more exposure. All of these are sales that DAW would miss out on anyway. As
it is DF with multi-user runtimes cannot compete in the sub $250 (Aussie
Dollar) and home/hobby market.


Regards,

Chris Vawser

[Oliver Nelson]

A little late but...

The only way freeware VDF apps will ever make it is if DAW includes an
installer wizard. Most freeware apps stall at this stage because of
complexity or lack of knowledge. Create a wizard that will allow
multiple VDF based freeware apps to be installed (even if you have
webapp or a development license or other DAW stuff already), and your
golden...

OLIVER

Greg Sergeant wrote:
> I kind of pushed for a single-user freeware license years ago but it
> didn't fly. My thoughts were like yours. If people are downloading and
> using freeware apps that say 'Created with Visual Dataflex', it is going
> to stir curiousity and publicity from the ground up. I believe that is
> one of the things that made VB such a hit. Everyone and their dog was
> out there writing freeware/shareware apps in VB.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> Anders Öhrt wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps a model like the following would work:
>>> All licensing of studio and runtime as it is, but a new Free Single
>>> User licence.
>>
>>
>>
>> But that would not get us more developers, which is the real problem.
>> Or, do you mean the compiler but not the IDE could be free?
>>
>> I like the rest of the idea though.
>>
>> // Anders
>>

[JimNC9]

I certaintly agree.

Jim /*
Advanced Designs, Inc.
www.advanceddesignsinc.com

"Oliver Nelson" <oliver@ootbc.com> wrote in message
news:wV6Ow$bAHHA.5480@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
>A little late but...
>
> The only way freeware VDF apps will ever make it is if DAW includes an
> installer wizard. Most freeware apps stall at this stage because of
> complexity or lack of knowledge. Create a wizard that will allow multiple
> VDF based freeware apps to be installed (even if you have webapp or a
> development license or other DAW stuff already), and your golden...
>
> OLIVER
>
> Greg Sergeant wrote:
>> I kind of pushed for a single-user freeware license years ago but it
>> didn't fly. My thoughts were like yours. If people are downloading and
>> using freeware apps that say 'Created with Visual Dataflex', it is going
>> to stir curiousity and publicity from the ground up. I believe that is
>> one of the things that made VB such a hit. Everyone and their dog was
>> out there writing freeware/shareware apps in VB.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> Anders Öhrt wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps a model like the following would work:
>>>> All licensing of studio and runtime as it is, but a new Free Single
>>>> User licence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that would not get us more developers, which is the real problem.
>>> Or, do you mean the compiler but not the IDE could be free?
>>>
>>> I like the rest of the idea though.
>>>
>>> // Anders
>>>