Tony; I probably asked many of the same questions. I did understand that if the coding was done for non-persistent apps then the number of licenses (both for pdp.net and the database) would be less.
I guess I should have qualified it more. We were looking at a "new" non-persistent app that was piggy-backing on our current database connections so we had no "extra" savings there. The connection - at this stage - was light and inquiry only. We had only 2 D3 clients left - of which one converted to UD last week and I learned Friday that the last one wants to convert Friday. This meant that we went with the free Uni-OLEDB interface. Which worked fine for us. I think what worried me most was that the SMA only covered minor product upgrades and since it was fairly new I was worried that there might be a couple major upgrades coming up. We never did get it in house so I can't comment on its technical merits. However, based on its pricing I just can't see justifying it for U2 only access. Thanks for making me make sure this was clear, -- Colin Alfke Calgary, Alberta Canada "Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that you can't fix it" Stu Pickles >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Gravagno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 5:32 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [U2] UniVerse in VB .NET > > >Colin Alfke wrote: >> We did (somewhat) investigate the pdp.net route but cost >> considerations precluded it for us. > >Hi Colin - I initially thought that the cost for PDP.NET was >prohibitive as >well but then I started asking questions and I was amazed that >the cost is >MUCH less than what people think. I had to send an extra >e-mail saying "are >you sure!?" and to get it in writing. RD Marketing has done a >good job of >developing and promoting the software, but I think they missed >the boat when >explaining the pricing model. The pricing is actually pretty >good whether >using persistent connections, or especially for non-persistent >apps which >are permitted per recent RD marketing. A non-persistent app >can be written >with a thicker middle-tier, thicker client, and/or in >combination with web >services. The final cost is really dependent on how you code. > One-for-one >coding as we do with green screens will probably make cost an >issue, but >then the question becomes whether end-users will pay more for >apps that are >developed using brand-names like IBM and Microsoft .NET. I think other >recent threads here have proven that people are paying >outlandish prices for >brand-name GUI apps, so is added cost at this tier really prohibitive? > >HTH, >Tony >Nebula R&D >Technical Editor, C#Builder Kick Start, SAMS Publishing >Author, Web Services and .NET, Spectrum Magazine articles >Nebula R&D provides Microsoft Certified C# development >services and training >------- >u2-users mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.u2ug.org/listinfo/u2-users ------- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.u2ug.org/listinfo/u2-users
