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]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <spamt...@spamt rap.invalidwrot e:

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

--
   .--------------------.
   |                    |
   |  Good Morning....  |        .--.--.

<snip huge sig>

get rid of the sig it's irritating

--
Nick Keighley

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <f9386878-1581-4d82-af36-681555b80c52@j4 0g2000prh.googl egroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_ nospam@hotmail. comwrote:

>On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <spamt...@spamt rap.invalidwrot e:
>

>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 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]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

kid joe wrote:

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.

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Dik T. Winter]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <ges8ab$4hu$1@n ews.xmission.co mgazelle@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <f9386878-1581-4d82-af36-681555b80c52@j4 0g2000prh.googl egroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_ nospam@hotmail. comwrote:

On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <spamt...@spamt rap.invalidwrot e:

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 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!

Why did you not provide an answer to the perfectly legitimate question?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Sjouke Burry]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

kid joe wrote:

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]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

kid joe <spamtrap@spamt rap.invalidwrit es:

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.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <K9v63p.89I@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi .nl>
rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
....

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?

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]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

gazelle@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <f9386878-1581-4d82-af36-681555b80c52@j4 0g2000prh.googl egroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_ nospam@hotmail. comwrote:

>>On 5 Nov, 10:40, kid joe <spamt...@spamt rap.invalidwrot e:
>>

>>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 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

\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( 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
--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the
extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children
smart. -- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), American editor and critic

[Keith Thompson]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

Phil Carmody <thefatphil_dem unged@yahoo.co. ukwrites:

gazelle@shell.x mission.com (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?

[...]

>CLC at its finest, boys!

>
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.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Tobin]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <87od0ut1lc.fsf @nonospaz.fatph il.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_dem unged@yahoo.co. ukwrote:

>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
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <ln8wryt160.fsf @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:
....

>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.

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]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <gesoso$fcp$2@n ews.xmission.co mgazelle@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9v63p.89I@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi .nl>
rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
...

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?

>
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?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <K9wuC8.D25@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi .nlwrote:

>In article <gesoso$fcp$2@n ews.xmission.co mgazelle@shell.x mission.com
>(Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9v63p.89I@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi .nl>
rhetorically and sarcastically asked the question below:
...

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?

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?

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]

Re: ShareWare vs Evaluation

In article <geut9o$tjp$4@n ews.xmission.co mgazelle@shell.x mission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

In article <K9wuC8.D25@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter@cwi .nlwrote:

....

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

....

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?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/