Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: TEDDS

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill:

If I recall correctly, CSC using the maintanence contract approach rather
than the upgrade approach.  You pay for a year of maintanence and in that
price all upgrades are included.  I just got version 5.0 of TEDDS in the
mail under the maintanence contract.  The maintanence contract is not too
expensive in relative terms ($96).

The bigger problem is that TEDDS uses M$ Word, so at some point to upgrade
TEDDS, you would likely have to upgrade M$ Word.  This is where the big
bucks has to be shelled out! <grin>

Scott

On Wed, 23 May 2001, Bill Polhemus wrote:

> 
> I agree. It sounds fantastic, and I'd love to use it. But what I hate is
> that I sink money into these programs, then they add additional
> functionality, and want an "upgrade price" of a significant fraction of what
> you paid for it, just so I can do the things that I realized I can't do
> until the "next version" comes out.
> 
> IMO, what has happened is that the original promise of Object Oriented
> Programming has PURPOSELY been killed, essentially by our old friends,
> Microsoft.
> 
> If you remember, what was SUPPOSED to happen is that we were supposed to
> have "objects" that we could purchase, as opposed to software programs, that
> we could "connect together" like tinker-toys, an infinitely-extensible
> widget set that would allow us EASILY, with next-to-no programming ability,
> to put together whatever tools we needed. Don't have certain capabilities in
> the program? Just go through the toolbox and pick out the tool parts that,
> working together, can do what you want.
> 
> One example I heard of this concept, to give you an idea of its power, is
> that you could take an aircraft of your choosing from Flight Simulator, and
> take it into your favorite roll playing game, and shoot up the monsters with
> it.
> 
> First of all, I have to say that Microsoft killed this, for obvious reasons
> (if they can't sell you their huge, bloated software packages, then where
> are they? They are in the BLOATWARE business.)
> 
> Interestingly, the original innovators of the promise of true Object
> technology were IBM and Apple, with their collaboration on the now-defunct
> "OpenDoc" project. People were surprised to see IBM and Apple working
> together since they were supposed to represent the opposite ends of the
> computing spectrum, but both realized they were in the business of selling
> HARDWARE, and it was of mutual benefit to have a set of software authoring
> standards (h*ll, more than that, a software PHILOSOPHY) that would allow
> users to solve their problems no matter what platform was in use.
> 
> Well, Microsoft immediately came out with OLE (now called Active-whatever
> the heck), and their "Common Object Model" (COM) architecture, which was
> supposed to be the "better answer" to OpenDoc and its "System Object Model"
> (SOM).
> 
> Never mind that the OpenDoc initiative conformed to a set of industry
> standards called "CORBA" that was supposed to ensure interoperability
> independent of platform, and OLE/Active didn't. Microsoft simply said "we'll
> do it better" and that was the end of OpenDoc (after it scraped along for a
> few years, and actually accomplished a few things which were incorporated
> into IBM's OS/2 and Apple's MacOS--neither of which together even had 15% of
> the PC OS market). And never mind that OLE/Active was only an idea on paper
> at a time when OpenDoc actually had some working products.
> 
> So now, we're stuck with the "wonders" of Active-whatever, which has only a
> FRACTION of the capabilities that OpenDoc would have given us. So we're
> STILL stuck with bloatware and specialized engineering software costing a
> significant fraction of the fee I get on one project, instead of a set of
> tools each costing only a few dollars, allowing us to make our OWN software
> that can be developed as our needs change.
> 
> So much for today's rant.
> 
> William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
> Polhemus Engineering Company
> Katy, Texas
> Phone 281-492-2251
> Fax 281-492-8203
> 
> 
> 
> * 
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
> 


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org