Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list conversion
Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list conversion
- Subject: Re: [OT] Avoiding Unnecessary Updates -- WAS: Re: IS: Script Editor Styles Format Change Script -- WAS: Re: String to list conversion
- From: Johnny AppleScript <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:57:12 -0600
On 04/09/15 5:33 AM, "John C. Welch" <email@hidden> wrote:
> You do realize they roll up security updates in those .x.x updates that
> aren't always released separately, right?
Yes, and, again, we look to see what issues are purported to be fixed in
them, and we decide at what risk we are in not taking them. Since we're
behind a well-managed firewall on a pretty innocuous LAN, 99% of the
security fixes we see listed are extremely low risk, anyway. Why risk
introducing USB or FireWire or Energy Saver or any number of other problems
that are widely reported, even though the odds are we won't see them, if
we're not seeing them or having any other problems now? Things are good.
We're getting work done without investing any time that could be better
spent helping the people we help. Leave them alone.
> Why buy a new one then? They all have four wheels and go vroom.
You just love to argue, don't you? Or are you so narrow minded as to not be
able to imagine situations where second and third and fourth vehicles are
required for different purposes? Here, let me spell it out for you:
A T-Bird can haul dirt and lumber, but it's not optimal; a truck is a
better solution. But a standard truck doesn't comfortably carry four people
on long road trips, and it's nowhere near as cool or fast as a T-bird, as a
a matter of both fact and opinion.
A T-bird can go off-road, and drive through the occasional Rocky Mountain
blizzard to go hunting or ice fishing or skiing, but it's not terribly well
suited for the task; a Bronco or an Explorer works better for that. The
latter both work as everyday transportation, too, but their gas mileage is
terrible compared to even the 5600 pound 'bird, and they're just not as fun
to drive on the road.
A wife and a husband and a son and a daughter and others can all drive a
'bird, but they can't all drive it at the same time to different places.
Physics currently require multiple 'birds, or substitutes thereof.
Enlightened yet? Good. Now, let's return the analogy back to software: I
still have a ten year old PowerPC running Office 4.2 and using Claris
Emailer with Auspice; it does exactly what I need with room to spare where
it is being used, and I have no intention of upgrading. In fact, we have a
lot of ten year old hardware, some upgraded, some not, running the software
of their day and producing just as much work output as their present day
cousins for identical tasks. There is no need or desire to spend money to
stay with the latest and greatest feature bloat by all people; you really
should try it some time; the money saved can be used for so many more
fulfilling and profitable gains.
> No, but it's a constant in the mac market. Say anything whatsoever nice
> about MS, and you're an "apologist".
Well, given that I've said so many nice things about MS, or at least their
products in this thread alone, I guess that makes me an apologist, too. I
guess I'm just less an apologist that you.
> Um...please explain how the JMF is a critical update, without which the
> product is incapable of functioning?
Well, if you want to use the JMF reliably, a feature that was heavily
advertised, highly useful, and one that you paid for when you bought the
product, which is also on by default, if I'm not mistaken, you have to baby
sit the machine in case it crashes on a malformed email. If you're not there
to baby sit, and it crashes, any number of automated tasks, notifications,
events, etc., will not happen as expected, and other features which were
heavily advertised and you bought and paid for no longer function until you
manually resolve the problem. I have yet to see even an AppleScript solution
that is viable or practical for this specific task, though I did experiment
with pref-swapping and relaunching.
Sure, we could just turn off one or the other, but then the product is no
longer whole, is it? It's value is no longer as it was when it was paid for,
and that is a symptom of abnormal depreciation, because, as opposed to being
just a lesser product compared to the newest, it is lesser compared even to
itself.
Of course, we're on an AppleScript list here, so to at least touch the topic
again, the obvious solution is to abandon the JMF altogether and reinvent
the wheel using AppleScript; the outcome will almost certainly be more
accurate, anyway, right? But that still puts the burden and cost of
development, even if we just install someone else's shareware or freeware,
on the user, and not the maker of the purchased defect. Not only a loss of
value, but a cost incurred to recover the function paid for.
> As well, the ONLY updates you see for
> Jag are security related at this point. Any bug fixes are a part of Panther
> now. You haven't seen 10.2.9, 10.2.10, etc, and you never will.
I'd bet a dollar that if a critical, fatal flaw was revealed or introduced
that caused kernel panics under a common condition, we'll still see an
incremental update for Jag. I agree that in recent memory the OS itself has
only seen security updates, but those updates have also offered feature
improvements to under-the-hood functions that go beyond just starting and
running the basic OS, too. Those security updates, not to mention app
package updates, fix Mail and web and all kinds of "free" software that are
"version-frozen" for that OS, but still require legitimate support, rather
than just force the user to pay the tax to get to Panther. QuickTime, Java,
iMovie, iTunes, Safari, on and on, all get free updates still or at least
recently such as to compare with MS Office X and 2004.
> I'm not twisting anything. You insist that Office 2004 is MS attempting to
> charge for what is a set of free bug updates.
I insist no such thing. I said, and will say again, that too many big fixes
require the upgrade price in our opinion, and the upgrade appears to offer
nothing compelling to entice our upgrade, otherwise. We simply don't see
enough feature improvements to *need* to move beyond where we are at this
time. If there was some new whiz bang feature that would return our new
investment, we would probably keep paying the tax, and not feel so much like
it was a terrible tax, but that's all just perception and justification to
the larger issue, and on the sad side is where they've left us this round.
Others, apparently you, feel you'll get some additional benefits from the
new version that are worth your dollars, and you get the gravy of bug fixes,
too. We merely differ on opinion as to what is value and what is tax.
> What computer company is still doing major work for a product that is over
> three years old and has a new version out already and not charging for it.
Apple. Microsoft. ATi. Roxio. Deneba/ACD. Need I go on? Now, do you really
qualify Office X as three years old? Because the scope of what MS and other
companies do for support to software that was selling new without upgrade
assurance less than a year ago or even two years ago compared to what they
tend to do for MS Office is quite disparate at times.
Now you'll elect yourself the authority on what defines major and what
defines minor, and what defines free and what defines new, so there's really
no point in continuing this.
> The JMF bug has nothing to do with this. As well, you might want to actually
> look at the technology guarantee terms, since by that statement, you don't
> actually have a clue about them...
Strange you should think that I had no clue since I personally filled out
that very form three times for three copies that came in after January 6th,
but the same forms were useless for the copies that came in in December and
as late as January 3rd. Not a single difference between the copies or the
price, but for three days on the shelf. And don't try to make this into a
case that I'm trying to get free upgrades for every copy of Office, from X
to 2001 to 98 to 4.2 for free.
Just try to look at it this way: If you paid full price for one of the
higher priced consumer/professional software packages, and it was the newest
you could buy at the time, and there were no official announcements about an
upcoming version, wouldn't you expect to get support and updates for
existing bugs for at least a month? Six months? A year? When do you think
it's fair for your dollars to stop counting? A day after you bought the
product? Three days? A week?
I propose that the strict calendar cutoff system of determining free versus
fully paid updates is unfair; a prorated system would be more fair to the
consumer. Many companies have and do still offer several steps based on
calendar, not just version possessed, for determining upgrade prices. Of
course, that makes it somewhat more costly for the company to manage, and
they be motivated to pass that cost back to us, but it could be done better
than it is for MS Office.
> Different situation...that was a bug that was going to be a problem the day
> they set it up, they just didn't know it was going to be in use that long.
Sounds like a pretty fair assessment of the JMF, too. The JMF was
ill-equipped to handle malformed email the day it was set up, and they were
aware of the issue long before the product support expired, long before the
next product was even in public (private) beta testing, and before the
problem became widespread and commonplace. I guess they just didn't expect
anyone to be unwilling to pay the tax to get past it, ergo, they didn't
expect anyone to still use it this long.
See, I can twist things around, too. Annoying, isn't it.
> And the number of Press houses that will take a Canvas file in your area?
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
Who needs press houses for self-publication, web-publication, and education?
And who needs more than one press house, if you have one good one who does
take Canvas on the rare occasion you need a press house? And have you never
heard of PDF? You really must learn to fully think out your arguments. Next
you will assert that unless you have MS Word, you cannot participate in a
business environment.
>> Well, the thing is, I've never seen Mail or Emailer or Outlook Express crash
>> repeatedly on the same email in the same way that the JMF bug is repeatable.
>
> Really? A feature they don't have doesn't cause them to crash?
Not only that, but features they do have do not cause similar crashes, in my
experience. Wait. I'm lost. What's your point? Oh, you didn't really have
one. I guess I'm not lost, after all. Come back over here, the conversation
is this way.
> Price is immaterial.
Price is not immaterial. Price and cost are the heart of this absolutely
fruitless and wasteful debate. I hope at least you have gotten your daily
jollies by making sport of someone else, when you know you're just arguing
for the fun of it. Were I not tasked with something right now that leaves me
little opportunity to be productive elsewhere, I would not waste my time
with your calculated obstinance, and only do so then on the principle of
standing up to list bullies.
> How many bug fixes have you seen for mozilla 1.0
> lately? Eudora 3? Mail that shipped with Mac OS X Server 1.2? How many
> copies of Panther are you running on a beige G3 with full support by Apple.
What version of Netscape and Mozilla are we up to now? How much did you pay
for them? How much did you pay for the previous versions? Nothing. They
don't make for very good comparative models, then, do they, as you get what
you pay for consistently with those, bugs or not. And isn't there a free
version of Eudora, too? So even if I paid for Eudora 3, I can upgrade for
free right now and quash any available bugs in 3 at no cost, and get all the
new features, too. After all, the advertising model is just a new feature,
right?
And OS X server 1.2 wasn't available in the last six to eight to ten months,
or even a year, either, and, AFAIK, it doesn't fatally crash on malformed
email or fatally crash in any condition in which it cannot self-recover. Do
you have information to the contrary that would at least allow a parallel
with the JMF? Let's instead talk about Mail and Mail server that shipped
with Jag and Jag Server, because both do indeed still receive updates, and
are similar in age to Office X, and neither ever fatally crashes here, even
on malformed email. Are they underpowered and under featured compared to
Panther? Possibly, but that's not the point, is it?
I won't bother with your last ridiculous question because you know the
answer; although it is not what you expect. What will probably really stick
in your craw are those ten year old machines I mentioned above that *are*
still supported by Apple, because they were sold with the promise of
lifetime support. One of the few times a class action suit brought about
acceptable justice.
> I haven't seen an update to BBEdit 2 in quite some time.
And how many fatal flaws were left in BBEdit 2? I seem to recall the thing
was pretty rock solid. I'll bet there are still people using it, and without
it crashing. I know we still use dozens of copies of BBEdit 3, and they
don't crash. And I'll bet if they did have a fatal flaw, Bare Bones would
have either fixed them or offered a special deal to anyone who missed an
upgrade window.
> Then don't use Office at all. Delete it.
Why would I do that? I paid for it. It still does a few things I can't get
easily elsewhere. When I feel I've gotten a reasonable ROI, and/or there's a
comparable solution available, I'll make the switch. And at that point I'll
offer it for sale to someone else, making them fully aware of why I'm
selling it.
> Stop paying the MS tax. Stand up
> for your freedom from the evil redmondites. It's not that bad, who needs any
> of those features anyway.
Didn't you start arguing with me because I stated that we were going to be
doing exactly that? You sure are a funny person; starting a fight then
offering advice as opinion as though it were your own, and not the point
made by us in the first place.
> They DO offer those things...they have upgrade discounts, volume upgrade
> discounts, technology guarantees, a veritable PLETHORA of programs for that.
Plethora? Really? Even a veritable plethora? At least show me the Quality
Assurance program I can't find, that you infer exists. I see the two options
we might qualify for, the standard upgrade and the calendar upgrade (hardly
a plethora or even veritable plethora), but I don't find the 'our product is
broken because we did a poor job on that feature and we're going to own up
to it by giving you a bit of a better break -- not free, mind you, because
we know you don't expect free -- on the new version because it's not cost
effective to fix the old one, even though we should' program.
> I'm interested though on the names of companies and the products and prices
> of these products that do what you want them to do...I notice that the
> Canvas 3.5.x bug doesn't get you a free copy, or even a $10 copy of 9. It
> gets you a single resource patch.
Well, even that single resource patch fixes a problem that makes the program
unusable for the majority of technically shy or illiterate people who don't
want to or know how to use ResEdit or feel like constantly turning back the
date on their machines. The greater point is *they didn't have to* fix the
problem at all (odds of a lawsuit being pretty low and legalities aside),
but they spent a few minutes or hours or dollars because it was *the right
thing to do*.
And, hold your hat, but we even got a letter from ACD after asking for help
wherein as apology (this was before they knew they could offer a patch) they
offered us a discount on version 9 that we would not otherwise have
available to us. Kinda cool, huh? Wonder why MS can't be as considerate.
Again, straight to the point of this stupid debate.
> You've shown one case, for a bug that has nothing to do with the JMF filter,
> as you would have to assume that MS is able to fix that bug in the v.X JMF
> and refuses to for some nefarious purpose.
There you go, twisting words and shifting the point again. The cases I was
referring to were the cases I made for paying gladly and understanding the
differences between new features and bug fixes; the difference between value
and taxed upgrades. And I never implied anything was nefarious, just
unethical; my exact word was 'unfair'. Unfairness can occur with out
nefarious intention, can it not?
I think we've exhausted this topic, or at least surely the constraints of
this list's charter. If you really want to argue more, I invite you to take
this off list. But, as this is typical of most polarized debates, neither of
us is likely to say anything to change the other's mind, and such debates
are only useful in assisting the undecided in making their own choices, it
seems pretty pointless to do even that. If you really must continue this,
then I suggest its place is on the Entourage list.
Cordially,
JA
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden