| ??? 08/07/09 18:50 Read: times |
#168248 - That would be an ideal fix! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
What about the one's who don't respond that way? You're just pointing to the same thing to which I've repeatedly referred. If the software isn't RIGHT, then the end-user should get his $$$ back immediately!
no need As i said and you quoted: "who says 'calendar limited', if you are "known honest" any manufacturer will loan you the software without restrictions." That's not what I've encountered recently. Now what I quoted was Nobody said anything about "a time limit you can tamper with." If you buy a car and, as has happened to me, that after 3 months you go on a long drive and find that, after 3 hours the seat 'kills' your back, do you think I could return the car for a refund? If you only get a 5-minute test drive, how can you responsibly decide to buy the vehicle? You need a 3-4 hour test drive, as I took in every car I evaluated before my last car purchase. My girlfriend rejected the Hyunday Sonata because the seat was uncomfortable, so I paid twice as much and bought another Nissan Maxima, my 4th one. The other issue, which you ignore when babbling about evaluations is that I know of one case where a company got ORCAD for a 1 month try and 'returned' it, while keeping the installed SW. Propose how such can be avoided, were the manufacturer to satisfy YOUR system? My experience with OrCAD is that they provide unlimited, lobotomized evaluation versions. I suppose they have to be somewhat generous to their potential buyers, as their Windows product isn't as useful as it was under MSDOS some 20 years ago. Of course, you can get a much better product, in the form of their old really good software at no cost. It's WAY faster, less prone to crash, and really well-integrated. The only problem is with the drivers, as printer technology hasn't been kind. Erik Actually, a 30-day time-limited version would perfectly satisfy the MFG's requirement, in that the evaluator wouldn't be able to use the software after having used it on 30 days. I can tell whether I can use a schematic package in about 10 minutes, simply by searching for library components. Most Windows products are so slow that it's easier to fire up the DOS box and use the old DOS OrCAD, print the schematics, plot the films, generate the drill tool, and ship the package to the board house while waiting for the Windows software to tell me the component (74AHCT564) doesn't exist. It takes a short time only because I already know where they'll fall down, and not because the evaluation is easy. A serious evaluation of a complete CAE package would take at least 30 days, full-time, working 18 hours a day. That's part of the reason I still use the old OrCAD, though I have the current package, and the Mentor, and the Cadence, and a number of others. If I knew of a function of a compiler that would fall down, at all, I'd not consider it at all. Commercial software costing what these compilers cost should be absolutely perfect, totally bug-free, and tested to the extreme, against every possible bit pattern in all of memory and storage, and all possible inputs. No manager-driven software product will ever be so thoroughly tested. RE |
