Older versions. Was "New Pricing".

[Richmond]

On 08/21/2012 03:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Richmond wrote:
>
> > 108. This reverts to my earlier question as to why RunRev aren't
> > prepared to market earlier versions
> > (say version 4.0) at a relatively reduced rate to folks like the
> > example above.
>
> Why version 4.0 specifically?  Why not version 3.0, or 2.0, or 5.0?

I used the word 'say'.

I would like it if Runrev offered all previous whole-number versions 
from 2.0 onwards with a rider
that NO SUPPORT is offered

>
> How does it benefit the company to create expectations of support for 
> older versions?

If they had a disclaimer that problem should not arise.

I use RunRev 2.2.1 on linux for most of my EFL stuff; I have never 
expected any support whatsoever:
it hasn't made me disgruntled: in fact I love RunRev 2.2.1 as it seems 
to behave better vis-a-vis standalones on older versions of Linux (e.g. 
Ubuntu 5.10) than the later versions I own.

>
> Should the company take on the additional expense of back-porting bug 
> fixes to your preferred version?

NO!

Imagine: RR/LC version 2.0 for $50 for any platform - take it or leave 
it, no support, no bugfixes,
WYGIWYG (What You Get is What You Get).

If earlier versions of RR/LC have bugs, then "hard cheese", that's what 
you get for $50.

Why is that such a daft idea?

It would bring RunRev some modest revenue from people who have neither 
the money to invest in the latest version, nor the requirements to have it.

What would this cost RunRev? Probably about 4-5 hours while somebody 
pops a webpage together
where people can order and download these older versions.

>
> What if the version you prefer differs from the one I prefer, or Monte 
> prefers, or Ken prefers?  Should RunRev explode their costs 
> exponentially by back-porting to all previous versions?

No backporting involved: presumably RunRev have got all previous 
versions backed up somewhere.

Richmond.