|
There's some software that I don't dislike, that have good features, and that I sometimes need... But not enough to buy.
Take TeamViewer, I have one client that uses it.
Unfortunately, my TeamViewer has detected professional use and now won't let me use it unless I buy a license.
That's all good, but this client calls me once or twice a month, and I have to use TeamViewer only once every one or two months, and usually for only a few minutes.
There will be months I'm paying my license for nothing.
I'm now trying to get my client to use a free Teams client, which I've paid for because I do need it for several clients.
I currently have another one of those, a prospect asked me to change some labels for him.
The software he uses does not come cheap (they don't even list prices, it's straight to contacting sales).
I used the 30 day trial, but that expired and I still have a label to go.
I'm not buying it unless this prospect becomes a very good client.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: That's all good, but this client calls me once or twice a month, and I have to use TeamViewer only once every one or two months, and usually for only a few minutes. There will be months I'm paying my license for nothing.
That is a perfect use case for the 'ticket card' solution I suggested (see below).
|
|
|
|
|
I've been been using Agent Ransack, and Internet Download Manager, for ... ages; I feel guilty they keep renewing/upgrading for free.
What I would purchase for my own use versus what an actual client might be willing to pay for (all or some of the cost): two very different beasts.
I resist the subscription model based on instinct, but, the necessity for PhotoShop, forces me to subscribe 
What software do you crave that you can't afford ?
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
FileLocator is Agent Ransack. Apparently, some companies thought that Agent and Ransack in the name implies spyware. So they created FileLocator to ease them and then Pro to commercialize it.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: What software do you crave that you can't afford ?
SmartDraw and MathCad. I owned both when they were way much cheaper. I even did some software UML drawings for my first company with SmartDraw because Visio could not handle the page size. They ended up with physical printouts because they refused to buy it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Perhaps you go back to the late Paleolithic like i do ?
This past-his-use-by-date person was an author of Cricket Draw 1.1, SmartArt Vols, 2 and 4, and Adobe Illustrator 3.2 and 5.0. my specialty was PostScript.
Those "whatevers" seem like distant dreams ... now ... i am an old man who just likes to fiddle with C#
i see you are interested in archaeology: i am a fairly serious student of ancient trade routes connecting Asia with the broader mediterranean/European world, with a focus on how ideas and iconography ... philosophical, metaphysical ... as well as technologies, scientific knowledge, and high-value goods were exchanged along those routes, which were also often the means by which remarkable pilgrims like Xuanzang, Ibn Battuta, and Ibn Fadlan, explored the world and created remarkable accounts of their journeys.
cheers, bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
WinZip was free, until it wasn't. Then it became perpetual licensing, until it wasn't. Some of the answers work better for businesses. There have been a few software that I personally bought and upgraded. For the rest, there were always alternatives and the need wasn't that great. Free/opensource trumps commercial usually for personal usage.
FileLocator Pro and UltraEdit are two that I've always bought and still use.
Software by Design and HTML PowerTools are two that I did a long time ago. Sadly, not enough people used them and they became obsolete.
Next Survey: What simple software (i.e., something that does a unique task) have you used the longest?
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: UltraEdit
I was a big fan of it too, and of the UltraCompare that came with it.
But I had BeyondCompare in a new job and at the end I adopted it for home too because I find it nicer.
The editor has been replaced by Notepad++ and PSPad, depending on what I am doing.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I went back to the new WinMerge. I used Notepad++ and PSPad at one point. But we had a huge log file (TBs) that both failed miserably to open. UltraEdit opened it in a few seconds.
modified 7-Sep-22 11:21am.
|
|
|
|
|
My version of WinZip is from the days when it was free. It still works.
Paintshop went the same path.
Java did, too, but I didn't follow it closely after it became restricted, so I really don't know the end of that story.
I believe that if MS had followed the same path with VS, MS as a whole and C# in particular would have been in a lot weaker position today. They went the other way, giving amateurs and small business with tight economical constraints full and unrestricted access to VS, for creating millions of small and medium applications that ties the entire population of the world, literally, to Window, dotNet and MS. Which customer cares about access to the source code? The customer cares for software developed by someone who knows their needs and expectations. That is what a freely available VS gives them.
People would rather pay a moderate sum for something solving their problems to a local three-man company (or maybe a clever neighborhood teenager) than getting something for free that they can't make heads or tails of, and fails to handle data from clients because the files contain non-English characters, file names contains a space or they are forced to either learn English terminology or learn to decipher some "translation" to the local language by a computer guy who doesn't know the professional terminology but makes stupid guesses. (In the worst case, the "tranlator" doesn't even master the everyday target language.) Quite often, you are much better off with a local developer, working in the field, even when that is not a ph.d. level professional FOSS developer, and you have to pay for the software.
|
|
|
|
|
This can be done in (at least) two distinctly different ways:
The free version can have "all" the functionality, but in a way that makes it useless. E.g. a sound editor that limits your sound file to five minutes duration, or a music editor that allows you all sorts of editing, but you cannot save your file. (I've encountered both of these.) I find it difficult to award this kind even a one, they deserve a zero.
Then there are the "elements" or "light" version, or whatever it is labeled ("community version" and "express" have also been used): The software is fully usable for a fair selection of simple tasks. Any professional would feel restricted by the lack of advanced functions, in particular if they are present in menus and online documentation but disabled and greyed out - a strong push to pay for the more capable version. This alternative I would give a four to five, depending on how well the split between free and paid functions is made. (Sometimes, 'paid' comes in several levels, too.)
|
|
|
|
|
Or "demo" type software which puts "watermarks" on whatever you create.
|
|
|
|
|
I never saw this offered:
Some software I use at a very varying frequency - sometimes, many months can pass without me using it. Then I might be using it several times a day for a few days. Then comes another silent period. My total use over time may be low to moderate, so buying the software for perpetual use may turn out to be expensive. With a regular subscription, I'd be paying for many months of no use.
If the vendor would provide a ticket service, sort of like the Kerberos ticket granting service (it could very well be an adaptation of that code; it wouldn't even need much adaptation!) so that the days I need the software, I could check out the 8-hour-ticket requested by the software. (Or 24 hours; Kerberos default is 8 hours.) Whenever I check out a ticket, my account is charged.
I would accept a rather high ticket price for single days of use. E.g. reducing the ticket price for consecutive days or setting a limit for the number of days you pay within a 30-day period would be trivial to implement. Making one ticket valid for an entire suite of software, e.g. for all software from a given vendor, is trivial.
This would also be a good base for a trial service: You could pay for a single day (or as many days as you need) to try out the software. If your verdict is negative, the software is not for you, the amount you paid is tiny compare to the full price or regular subscription. Of course you would need to have an account, but if the authentication service is shared among several vedondors (as would normally be the case in a Kerberos based system), they could also share the account system so that you could try out, and regularly use, software from all those vendors through a single account.
If this was based on the (open source, freely available) Kerberos software, everything you need is ready to use, with the exception that the application/software must be extended to check that the user posesses a valid ticket. The user will have to authenticate himself to the ticket granter at the start of the working day, but only once for all the software vendors using the same ticket granting structure (they may have different ticket granters, but relying on the same authentication service). Retrieving a ticket for the software to be used is automatic and usually invisible to the user.
I never saw any software licensing system along these lines, and I do not understand why. If it was an option (in real life, and in the poll), I would give a five.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen a software trial that work like this.
It's pretty common for companies to say that you can get a 14-day trial of the software without purchasing it. For most software, the 14 days start the first time you use the software, and expire exactly 14 days later, no matter how many times you use it.
One company I know of says that you get a 14-day trial, but the software only counts days on which it is used. If you use it only once a week, you effectively have 14 weeks to try it, one day each week. This makes a lot of sense to me, because it still gives you a time-limited trial of the software but it lets you use that trial in your workflow instead of forcing you to decide quickly whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Moshe Katz wrote: One company I know of says that you get a 14-day trial, but the software only counts days on which it is used. If you use it only once a week, you effectively have 14 weeks to try it, one day each week.
That solves half of the problem, the "trial" part (but I've never seen it in software I use).
For the use case where you need the software for maybe one week every year for ten years, it doesn't satisfy. Having a deadline: 'You will have to complete all your trials/work within x days - after that, you've lost!' makes me uneasy. It doesn't work like a ticket card, that I can renew when needed. (Or the gas tank of my car, if you prefer that analogy.)
|
|
|
|
|
an option give more then 1 second thought just had me swing all over the place.
most current software I can think of fall just a skew toward service, which makes needing updates important. Cloud saves aint fee and helpful that one time computer fails. New "standards" every year.
Annual fee being cheaper then monthly 😒 (i get it, upfront revenue good for cashflow books, but rich get richer)
free is free, but clear catch
online services cost money
ease to cancel should be same as ease of buying
Networx network tool been using for years, and has buy a years license, get updates, can continue that version indefinitely, but want newer version there an upgrade fee which a bit cheaper then new.
|
|
|
|
|
...a row with 'No cost software, that supported', and a fixed 5 rate
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." ― Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
