Maintenance will be calculated based on
the CPUs or Quick Start price if you go that route. . I think that’s
pretty consistent with other software industry norms.
I’ll make you the same offer, Simon.
Where you have serious projects running, lets talk directly and find a way to
make this work out.
Lucian
From: Simon Fifield
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005
11:49 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Flex 1.5
price
My clients have also stretched themselves
to purchase the 2cpu license, which cost more than the Dual Processor
server they purchased to match the spec.
Now that the license for Flex is either 1
or 4 cpu does this mean that my clients are going to have to more than double
the original purchase price when they need to renew their maintenance license?
Or will the 1 cpu license cover the whole
server? (i.e. does cpu mean server or does it mean processors?)
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Shirey
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 March 2005 18:17
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Flex 1.5
price
What about a 2cpu license? Please answer. Your 'starter
kit' is
overkill for us. If our price is based on a
minimum 4cpu price, then
this is no longer a joke at all. We will
have to drop Flex and never
look back. We will have wasted months of
training and actual
development time. This is NOT a price I can
justify to anyone.
We're seriously disappointed in Macromedia at this
time. We're a very
small shop and its starting to look like
Macromedia does not care
about the little guy at all anymore.
-- Matthew
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:00:13 -0500, Darron J.
Schall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jeff Steiner wrote:
>
> >Lazslo, while the samples look great, is
still based upon Flash player 5
> >(Beta 3 of Lazslo is player 6). It
is one of those things where you have to
> >wonder - how does Lazslo know what to
extend of the Flash Player. The
> >people that are contributing to it make
guesses and try to extend the
> >capabilities as far as they can, but they
are still limited in their
> >knowledge. I have never seen an API
to the Flash player made readily
> >available to the public. Also - as
the Flash Player gets more complicated
> >it will become more difficult to code
hooks into the player to give
> >developers the same functionality that is
provided by Flex, and Breeze, and
> >Flash, ........
> >
> >
> As a Flash developer, I'd like to chime in
here..
>
> The fact that Lazslo works on Flash Player 5
really isn't an issue. In
> fact, I'd say it's a bonus! Here's why:
>
> * Because Lazslo outputs to Flash Player 5,
it has a larget target
> audience. See the penetration stats:
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetration.html
> -- FP 5 is 97%. FP7 is 82% - so apps
created in Laszlo have a better
> chance of being viewed
>
> * There are no "older is slower"
arguments. The v7 player will play a
> v5 swf faster than the v5 player, because the
v7 player itself is faster
> than the v5 player.
>
> * The internals are abstracted away.
Right now your Lazslo code
> publishes to .swf, but it's not tied to the
Flash Player in any way -
> there are no MovieClip references, etc in
your lazslo code. In fact,
> you don't even use ActionScript, you write in
_javascript_. There's
> nothing to stop someone from writing a new
"player" and with a few
> tweaks to the Laszlo compilation process you
could have output for that
> new player.
>
> When you develop an application, do you
really care about the internal
> API calls of Flash Player 7? If I'm a
Lazslo developer, I say no.. I
> know what tags I can use in my markup, I know
what the APIs are, and I
> use them and get a *working* .swf file.
As long as it works, that's all
> I care about. If SWF5 is all it takes
to make it work, then that's cool.
>
> Is there anything in v7 SWF that would
benefit Lazslo apps? Not
> really. Some of the new things added in
FP 7 over FP 6 is case
> sensitivty, depth management functions
(getNextHighestDepth..) , context
> menu, etc,. The biggest change would
probably be embedded video, and
> that may be a show stopper for some.. but
it's rare that an
> "application" needs video in
it. FP 6 adds some things over FP5 like
> ShardObjects, so I can see how upgrading to
v6 in that respect would be
> benefitical. FP 6 also added different
event handlers than FP5
> (.onPress, vs on (press)) - but that has 0
effect on how I code my
> Lazslo markup. The FP6 style event handlers
are meant to make AS coding
> easier, but Lazslo doesn't care about that
because it has it's own
> coding model.
>
> The fact that Lazslo accomplishes what it
does on an old version of the
> SWF format is not a drawback, it's a
benefit. There's really no reason
> to use SWF7 if everything you need to do can
be accomplished in SWF5.
> The fact that Lazslo separates itself from
the Flash Player is another
> benefit as well.. If something should
ever happen, maybe legal issues
> or whatever, Lazslo can output to, say, Java
applets or whatever, since
> the code is all abstracted from the VM and
the compilation process
> handles the dirty work of putting your code
into a format the VM can
> understand.
>
> -d
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
|