I was already told by our MM rep that its counted by the physical processor. Dual core is still one.
M. On Apr 1, 2005 1:28 AM, Anthony Merryfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It'll be interesting what the policy will be on dual core CPUs when they > arrive? > > T > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Fifield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 March 2005 20:49 > To: [email protected] > 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?) > > Simon > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Shirey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 March 2005 18:17 > To: [email protected] > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This communication together with any attachments transmitted with it ("this > E-Mail") is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain > information which is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this > E-Mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible > for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any > use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this E-Mail is > strictly prohibited. Addressees should check this E-mail for viruses. The > Company makes no representations as regards the absence of viruses in this > E-Mail. If you have received this E-Mail in error please notify our ISe > Response Team immediately by telephone on +44 (0)20 8896 5828 or via e-mail > at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please then immediately delete, erase or otherwise > destroy this E-Mail and any copies of it. > > Any opinions expressed in this E-Mail are those of the author and do not > necessarily constitute the views of the Company. Nothing in this E-Mail > shall bind the Company in any contract or obligation. > > For the purposes of this E-Mail "the Company" means The Carphone Warehouse > Group Plc and/or any of its subsidiaries. > > Please feel free to visit our website: http:// www.carphonewarehouse.com or > http://www.phonehouse.com > > The Carphone Warehouse Group Plc (Registered in England No. 3253714) 1 > Portal Way, London W3 6RS > > ________________________________ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
