I've got to say I'm firmly on the fence with regard to this issue.
The last time we paid for MS Office was back in 2000 (seriously). I
think we paid $400 or $500 for it, and it was the type of thing that we
could load on a couple of PCs for the duration. Yes, it got long in
tooth, but it worked, and it did what we wanted. That came to about $16
per PC per year. Pretty good deal, and I don't think we missed out on
much. Sure, a couple of years ago, MS made a major change to file
formats that the old version couldn't open, but they also provided
viewers and converters so we made do.
However, most of the office files you see these days are the new format,
so we decided to get the new version as a service. We're paying $150
per year for 5 seats (which we only need 4 of). So that will be $37 per
PC per year (or $30 per PC per year if we install it on another PC).
Call that inflation, but it also gets updates on a more-or-less
continuous basis.
The biggest downside is that the new office contains a bunch of cruff
that we don't need, and "probably" won't use.
Call it progress, or whatever. I've seen a bunch of model-evolutions
over the years, and this just seems to be the latest.
bp
On 10/16/2014 8:21 AM, Adam Moffett via Af wrote:
Autodesk....They still charge thousands of a copy of autoCAD, but you
can get it on a month to month basis for $60/month, or pay for a whole
year and it's like $35/month.
I would never have been able to justify paying them $3k for something
I would use 4 times a year, but I can pay them $60 each for the four
times I want to use it. Before that I would limit my use to twice a
year....one 30 day demo of the current release of autoCAD and one 30
day demo of the current autoCAD LT.
I don’t dispute that, or that SaaS is the wave of the future
(present?), just I find Intuit to be a money-grubbing borderline
unethical company to deal with, that nonetheless dominates their
market niche. Probably because the accountants all use it. As far
as getting the bug fixes immediately because you subscribe as a
service, that would mean more if it didn’t take Intuit years to fix
bugs. There is actually very little improvement from year to year in
Quickbooks, it is mostly cosmetic or related to new services they
want to sell you. Which tend to be pretty poor, for example their
payroll service is really pathetic, you’re almost better off filling
out the tax forms by hand.
But as an other example of SaaS, Adobe has gone heavily that
direction with their creative suites. If you are a graphic designer
or web designer, I’m sure it’s a very good deal. For someone like me
with an owned copy of Photoshop, it probably doesn’t make sense to
start paying monthly, since I could care less about having the latest
improvements, I don’t use it intensively enough to make it
worthwhile. Maybe for Dreamweaver since HTML techniques are changing
all the time. At least Adobe doesn’t require that you are connected
to the Internet in order to use the software. I don’t really have
any problem with their approach, even though it doesn’t work out so
well for me.
*From:* Travis Johnson via Af <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:38 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] SM Isolation question
I haven't seen the same results... every single company I am involved
with, and even the 20+ that I have met with over the last three
months have all used Quickbooks.
Travis
On 10/16/2014 8:12 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote:
I would not use anything related to Quickbooks as an example of the
best way to do something.
Your only choices from Intuit are how you get screwed, not whether.
*From:* Travis Johnson via Af <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:02 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] SM Isolation question
How do you figure? Everything will eventually be SaaS... and it's a
much better model for both sides. The software stays updated and
current and bug fixes are instant. The initial cost to start with
the software is usually 1/10th what it would be to buy, and it
allows people to use the software from anywhere.
Many years ago, I was of the same opinion. Then I started to realize
my time (or anyone else's time) was better spent focusing on the
product we sold rather than installing/fixing/supporting someone
else's software.
I know I personally spent at least 50+ hours over the previous 15
years installing/fixing/supporting Quickbooks on our LAN. Getting it
installed on a server, setting up the shares, mapping drive letters,
installing it on each PC, etc. The software cost us $500 to buy, and
then the yearly updates were usually $200-$300. Or you can subscribe
to the online version for $39/month and be done with it. It's
automatically backed up, you don't have to host it on your own
server, or worry about upgrade issues or users with problems, etc.
Time is money. Spend your time doing what you know how to do, and
hire someone else to do the other tasks. :)
Travis
On 10/15/2014 9:31 PM, Tyler Treat via Af wrote:
True story.
___________________________
Mangled by my iPhone.
___________________________
Tyler Treat
Corn Belt Technologies, Inc.
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
___________________________
On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Jason McKemie via Af <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yeah, SaaS is great for the company that owns it, not so great for
everyone else.
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Travis Johnson via Af
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Nope... mainly SaaS companies and real estate. Best of both
worlds. :)
Travis
On 10/15/2014 3:40 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote:
Someone told me you were getting into manufacturing��
Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com <http://www.aeronetpr.com>
@aeronetpr
On 10/15/14, 5:31 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af"
<[email protected]> wrote:
It just depends on the day... :)
Involved in 11 companies now, and looking at a 12th.
Always stuff going
on. LOL
Travis
On 10/15/2014 3:16 PM, Gino Villarini via Af wrote:
Travis, are you getting bored at your current job?
Lol!!
Great to see you active in the list!
Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com <http://www.aeronetpr.com>
@aeronetpr
On 10/15/14, 4:14 PM, "Travis Johnson via Af"
<[email protected]> wrote:
The other issue is p2p traffic between two
people on the same AP....
and
if you are doing bandwidth shaping in your
router, even at the tower,
you will never see these packets. Or in the
case the original poster
asked about, that customer could keep a
high-def window open of all
their video cameras at the other location,
using 3-4Mbps of constant
traffic, and you would never see it.
Travis
On 10/15/2014 1:48 PM, George Skorup (Cyber
Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
When you forward SM-to-SM traffic
upstream, there's nothing the router
can do about it. Put the two locations on
different IP subnets so that
traffic between the two has to be routed.
Or turn off SM isolation.
I leave SM isolation off because I'm not
that paranoid. The biggest
risk is broadcast/multicast crap flying
around. So use the SM uplink
broadcast/multicast rate limiting. This is
one of the best features of
Canopy, IMO.
On 10/15/2014 2:23 PM, Christopher Tyler
via Af wrote:
We have a customer that has two SM's
on the same AP at separate
physical locations (home and office).
The have a DVR at each location
that they want to view. Everything is
configured properly on their
end to view the DVR's on port 80
through their routers. Problem is
that we have SM isolation turned on
with option 2 to forward packets
upstream and they want to see the home
when at the office and the
office when at home.
So I set up a mangle rule in my
Mikortik to mark the packets with a
routing mark based on the SRC and DST
addresses, and then used a
static route for anything what that
mark and send it back to the AP
port. It doesn't work, what am I doing
wrong, any suggestions short
of disabling SM isolation?
