ShareWare vs Evaluation

[kid joe]

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?
Having a ShareWare product that can be activated to a fully enabled
version of that product with a registration code has it's disadvantages
(given the numerous websites that post 'regcodes'), but ShareWare is also
a fast and efficient means in keeping a customer happy. Evaluation-ware,
on the other hand, where code segments are missing, represents a more
secure form of delivering a demo product that cannot be compromised - but
this is at the cost of possibly aggravating potential customers who would
need to download the full version after gaining access to it through a
legitimate purchase.

Any opinions or experiences?

Thanks

Joe


--
.--------------------.
| |
| Good Morning.... | .--.--.
| | .; .;|;. ;.
`-------------. ,---' .;_;' `;_;.
\| ; ;' `; ;
\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )
\| . . |/
........... . .:::::. . .______
/ . '---` . '\
.' `. .' \
| ____,.- . | `.....' | _______ |
| ,-' \ /|\'' \.-- |
| / \.'\ /,'. \. - |
| /| ` `\ / \ |
| ,/ _ '/ '\ |
,-' ,-. |o '
/ '| | | | \
/ ,/| |o | \ `
| .' | |.' |. \ \
________/ .'____|________________________||__`. `__________
( \ ) / )
'-. '-. ( .-` .-`
'-. .-'--.__. .-.__.--`-. .-`
'-..' \--' : ~`:=3D,`- `..-`
\ .. \\ |`-'|`-, /
\\\\\\\) | |`-'/.'/
\)\)\\ `-' `-'
`

 

[Nick Keighley]

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

<snip>

this is off-topic to comp.lang.c

<snip huge sig>

get rid of the sig it's irritating

 

[Kenny McCormack]

<snip>

this is off-topic to comp.lang.c blah, blah, blah

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!

 

[Eric Sosman]

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?
[... message and obnoxious sig snipped ...]

No. Goodbye, kid.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
> asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature
> block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.
>
> CLC at its finest, boys!

Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Hi

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

The worst thing to attract customers is crippleware.
If you want to show your software to a prospective customer,
it is very annoying to be unable to check out the full product.
Limited testing time, with activation code when purchased,
would be the way to go.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Can anyone share their experiences regarding which approach (ShareWare vs
Evaluation-ware) works best to protect profits and keep customers pleased?

No. This is comp.lang.c. Your question has nothing whatsoever to do
with the C programming language.

And your signature is 33 lines long; the generally accepted maximum is
4 lines. If you continue posting with your huge signature, people
will ignore you, and you'll never get any help here (except perhaps
from the trolls, who can't be trusted to give accurate information).
I believe you are being deliberately obnoxious about this. Please
knock it off. (And no, this has nothing to do with fixed-width fonts;
I can see the picture just fine.)

 

[Kenny McCormack]

....

Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?

Because *I* understand (and know enough to adhere to) the maxim that if
you don't have anything useful to say, say nothing at all.

The CLC regs would do well to follow this.

 

[Phil Carmody]

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?
It's not very fine, it's not even fine, or even passable.
It's a crap signature.

More size does not equal more worth. Usually the opposite.

block - and all they get is 2 little turds from our resident twits.

CLC at its finest, boys!

Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Phil

 

[Keith Thompson]

(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes: [...]

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?
It's not very fine, it's not even fine, or even passable.
It's a crap signature.

Why bother to mention the "=3D", as if fixing that problem would make
it acceptable?

[...]

Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?

In case you want a serious answer... presumably because it was
carelessly cut-and-pasted from a documented encoded as
"quoted-printable".

-- Richard

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Well, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to read it.

Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.[/QUOTE]

Why are you so threatened by me?

I don't bite. Really.

But it is good to have my own little monitor - someone obsessed with me.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> In article <[email protected]>, Dik T. Winter <[email protected]>
> rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
> ...
>
> Because *I* understand (and know enough to adhere to) the maxim that if
> you don't have anything useful to say, say nothing at all.

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Aha, you prefer no answer at all to a pointer to another newsgroup?

Careful now - any minute now, Officer Keith (*) is going to come along and
tell you to mosey along - leave the troll alone.

But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

There are several reasons for this, which I will not go into at the
moment, but suffice to say that "Try XYZ" always comes off as
"get the hell out".

(*) Assisted by butt-buddy Officer Loser.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

....
> But, anyway, take it from one who knows, these "pointers to other group"s
> are not appreciated - at least not by anyone with any self-respect.

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Ah, those people prefer to get no reply at all?

In a word, yes.

If I post a question, I'd rather get no response than a bullshit response.

To be more precise, for any given possible responder, if they have the
choice of giving a BS response or giving no response, I will always
prefer the later. And I believe most help-seekers feel the same.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> In a word, yes.

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Ah, that must be the reason that people post a question twice, or even
three times if they do not get an answer. Now I understand.

Yes. For the same reason as they often re-post when all they get is BS
answers. Effectively, BS answers are just line noise.

It is the nature of Usenet that if you post something and get no
response (or only BS responses), the post effecively "goes away" (since
Usenet articles have short shelf lives). So, yes, you have to re-post.

 

[Phil Carmody]

(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) writes: [...]

Isn't it great? Someone pours their little heart out in a posting,
asking a perfectly legitimate question, including a very fine signature

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=3D( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )

Why does he have an '=3D' in the middle of his glasses frame?
It's not very fine, it's not even fine, or even passable.
It's a crap signature.

Why bother to mention the "=3D", as if fixing that problem would make
it acceptable?

I didn't mention the "=3D" as if fixing that problem would make
it acceptable. I simply reduced the number of supposed merits
from 1 to 0. It's not messed-up /rather than/ unacceptable, it's
messed up /as well as/ unacceptable.

Please don't feed the troll. Replying to "Kenny McCormack" just gives
him the attention he apparently wants. Don't play his game.

There's a fine line between a troll and a palooka. I have no
problem handing out a few negative strokes while I work out which.

Phil

 

[Phil Carmody]

In case you want a serious answer... presumably because it was
carelessly cut-and-pasted from a documented encoded as
"quoted-printable".

The answer I had in mind was "because he's a fucknut". But yours is
close enough, I guess.

Phil