People seem to forget that Delphi 8 was .NET only. Which as a "true" product no longer exists. I strongly doubt anyone is using Delphi 8 anymore.
If Delphi 2005 was so unfit for purpose (which I do not agree with) why didn't you get your money back. Simple as that. Delphi 2005 still created binaries for deployment. We used Delphi 2005 for about a year before the D2006 version was released and deployed our software to clients over that period. I'm interested in knowing what made Delphi 2005 so unfit for purpose, since I don't use all of the products maybe there was an area or two are really messed up. The IDE being slow or using lots of memory and requiring a restart doesn't make it unfit for purpose either. So let's see a list of issues with Delphi 2005 on the table. I expect Paul must have several since he is still using it. As for not allowing upgrades from certain versions, well I owned a copy of some slideshow making software (off the shelf). I checked out the website for the latest versions, and corel now own it and I can't upgrade to the newer version from my version. At least you are being told in advance. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 8:24 AM, David Brennan <dugda...@dbsolutions.co.nz> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > I agree Delphi 8 and Delphi 2005 were mistakes and arguably not fit for > purpose. I also agree that no one (ie Borland or Embarcadero) has made good > on that. Excluding them from the upgrade path is very poor, and arguably > users on those versions should be offered a cheaper upgrade if anything. > > > > However I still don’t think software houses can afford to offer open ended > bug fixes in the general case. Damage control on an abomination like Delphi > 8/2005 is one thing but saying anyone using an old version of your product > should get bug fixes forever more at no cost is just not a sustainable > business model. I don’t know of any software companies that will do it – as > some have pointed out even Microsoft won’t do it beyond a certain point and > they have a far more profitable business than any other software company. > > > > Cheers, > > David. > > > > From: delphi-boun...@delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-boun...@delphi.org.nz] On > Behalf Of Paul A Norman > Sent: Sunday, 20 September 2009 5:53 p.m. > > To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List > Subject: Re: [DUG] A change in upgrade policy coming from Embarcadero > > > > "open ended bug fixes " 2009/9/19 David Brennan <dugda...@dbsolutions.co.nz> > > Dear David, > > > > When we talk about D8 and especially 2005 we are not talking about minor > matters. > > > > Others in the past have listed what does not work, the list is not too cool. > > > > What needs to be realised here is that there is a very big difference > between "bugs" than may be a little annoying to some one, and things that > are actually fundamental to the application's operation. They are not "bugs" > but I believe misdemeanors :-) > > > > If a 'bug' actually stops the application operating as it shuld in any > significant way it may in my opinion fall fowl of Lord Deninnigs famous > judgement onn when is a car bought under contract, not a car? (More below) > > > > Developers need to keep to very high standard in this, if for no other > reason than that if commercial resentent levels rise to high in the broader > community with developer's attitudes, regualtion will follow. It is already > being considered in some quarters. > > > > Regulation will not be nice. > > > > Seek legal advice on any and all of the following points of my personal > opinion. > > > > At present the general provisions regulating the industry I believe are the > Fair Trading Act, Common Law of Torts and a few Absolute liabilities. > > > > Absolute liabilities are things contained in Statute or if you like also > those Universal moral principles of duty of care. > > > > For example if one designs a computer application say for the operation of > lifts, and people are trapped and injured or even die becasue it is later > determined by a competent tribunal that one failed to develop the > application using the genreal standards of care and diligence that a > developer should use, it is even possible in some juristdictions that the > developer could be found guilty of culpible homicide - man slaughter! > > > > In NZ the equivalent commonly known scenario was where previously mechanics > have been found guilty for things that they missed during WOF inspections of > vehicles where injury or death has resulted. Not becasue they mised the > items but because it could be demonstrated that they had not exercised in > this case an absolute duty of care in their work. > > > > The standard is not always simpolt that there is a problem, but the nature > of the problem. > > > > In software ddevelopment I would submit that if your client wants to use > your software for an uninteded or unenvisaged purpose at the time of design > brief, and this breaks your application, then the developoer maybe should > rightly feel indignent that the problem is laid at their door. And maybe > could expect to charge out to make the new use of the application work. > > > > If however a period of time elapses before it becomes apparent that some > proscribed feature of the software as brieefed and paid for does not > function properly, than no matter what periods of testing or due diligence > my be inserted in the contract the developoer may find himself liable for > soemthing, and the amount may increase with time the more he fights it. > > > > You can not always contract out of established law. Often you can not at > all contract out of law. > > > > The reason is that one is subject to the Sovereign power of the jurisdiction > you are operating in. And contracts made under that jurisdiction can not > contravene the determinations of that jurisdiction. Unless there is specific > provision to do os. > > > > In other words in NZ there are provisoins of the Fair Trading Act that can > not be contracted out of. > > > > As a matter of public policy, this helps prevent any form of commercial or > other duress during treating to contract. > > > > Now be careful in saying that a licanse is not the same as ownership. > > > > Truly it is not, but if you take money for it, more and more legislators and > courts all over the world are starting to say that there are > responsabilites on the person who receives the money to give value. > > > > In common law there are lessor duties of care that people can rely on even > in an contract situation. > > > > Lord Denig found that even though the man who bought a car was bound bby > contract to pay for the car, because the car was defiecent in several ways > from what a reasonible man might expect a car to be and do -- legally it was > not a car! So he granted the man relief. > > > > If your application fails to meet certain requiremetns of your contract > formal or implied, or shows that you have not designed it with the > reasonible care that a resaonible person should do so as a developer, then > you may get a nasty surprise if you don;t want to put it right! > > > > I wholoehearetadly belive that D.2005 is headed that way. Even the service > pack three doesn't work on some people's machines as a known issue! It > doesn't on my main one. F1 gives no help at all let alone the inadequate > help it gives on the other machine I sue. I can not cut copy ot paste in > the Form Designer .. I could go on! but I won't bore you, hte issues are > well established else where. > > > > So where does E satnd? In my view they bought a franchise - and nneed to fix > the elkements of the franchise that they want to make money out of. Does E > have any liability to licensees under the franchise? > > > > Legal, moral, practical? Yes beyond doubt. > > > > But most importantly commonsense wise they have obligations. > > > > We are people who want to get on with each other. > > > > E and their staff want to feel that they are acting in a caring way towards > their clients - just as people. > > > > Saying it is business and therefore different rules apply, doesn't cut it > any more - its casued too many problems and is a failed philosophy. > > > > Now when you buy a franchise or equivalent - you can't say I am only > responsible for the bits I like, or which will give us a qucik cash fix. > > > > You need to act responsabily accross the board and deal with things as they > are, not as they would wish them to be. > > > > Isn't the good price E is rumoured to have got D for, going to reflect the > issues of D that B had to concede sale price over? > > > > And therefore does that not mean that E have been compensated already for > the D.8 D.2005 liability? > > > > So come on E you've had your financial compensation for the D.8 D.2005 > problems, pass some on and help us up! > > > > And as for the D.3 -> upgrade issue surely here again commonsense comes into > play ... Developers are people don't be too quick to play with their minds > like this. > > > > The franchise has certain groundrules we bought our licenses on certain > understandings, you bought the franchise on those understandings, change it > to improve the experiences of the Licenses hoders not to remove provisions. > > > > Put some real incentive in there, and as well leave the dooor open! > > > > Seek legal advice on any and all of the above points of my personal opinion. > > > > paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list > Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz > Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi > Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: > unsubscribe > _______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe
