Board index » delphi » Re: Is Delphi 7 "abandonware"?

2006-11-29 03:36:17 AM
delphi209
--
Anders Ohlsson - blogs.borland.com/ao/
CodeGear Developer Relations
"A golf course that does not have a pub after the 18th hole
is like an acupuncturist who does not offer needle removal."
 

In article <456c750b$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
says...
new version has been released".
Has there been an update for 2005 since 2006 was released?
I think this is the change in approach that Dennis is hoping for.
--
Jolyon Smith
 

Dennis Cote writes:
happy to concede that we aren't supporting it in a way that satisfies
you, but the fact remains that it is a supported product. Our support
engineers answer Delphi 7 support questions all the time.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

I guess I should have put a smiley after my last post. :-)
It was a pot shot at your response to my suggestion that CodeGear should
do more than Borland has done in the past. In your response you said
that you had done "exactly that already", when obviously you (CodeGear)
haven't done anything yet.
I hope that clears up the confusion.
Dennis Cote
 

Captain Jake writes:
Dennis Cote
 

In article <456ca199$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
says...
D2005. Delphi 8 came with Delphi 7 in the box for crying out loud.
D8 was not, in any practical sense, a new _version_ of Delphi, it was a
whole new _Delphi_, period. So of course Delphi 7 got updates and fixes after
the release of D8.
Q: Has Delphi 7 had any updates or fixes since the release of BDS2005?
More to the point, will there *ever* be any further update or fix
release for D7?
A particularly pertinent question given that the last "fix" was itself
broken! If Delphi 7 is being actively supported (in the sense that it is
being maintained) then an update is long, long overdue.
And perhaps that is the problem in this discussion. I think perhaps we
should stop talking about "support" - a very broad term - and instead
use the term that identifies the specific _form_ of support that is seen
as lacking - i.e. maintenance.
Up to now I think most people have been saying "support" when they meant
"maintenance".... anyone approaching the discussion sensibly would ber
perfectly clear that updates and fixes is what is meant by "support" by
those asking about "support" in the form of, erm, updates and fixes.
Q: Is Delphi 7 being actively supported ?
A: (Honest, but slippery) : Yes - we get and answer support calls all
the time.
Q: Is Delphi 7 being actively maintained ?
A: Erm, .....
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
 

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
you call this type of support, partial support. Partial support: We will
answer your questions where we can, we may even let you know if you have
run into a well know bug, but we won't ever fix that bug.
In fact, I don't particularly care about D7. I don't have that version
and so am not directly affected by its lack of full support. I have used
Turbo C, Borland C++ 3.1, Delphi 5, Delphi 6 Personal, BCB 6, and BDS
2006 (C++ personality).
I am concerned that, as one of the chiefs at the new enterprise, you are
sending signals that everything was OK the way Borland did it, and will
continue in the same fashion under CodeGear. At least you haven't said
anything that would lead anyone to believe that you recognize this lack
of full support is a real problem, and that you (CodeGear) intend to
provide a more complete type of support for your existing and new products.
You won't get many better chances to SHOW your customers that CodeGear
is going to do things differently than Borland, and I don't think you
will get any complaints from customers if you improve the level of
support you provide for your products.
Dennis Cote
 

In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Derek Davidson
writes:
have to allow them a suitable discount. Lots of larger businesses and
the public sector (here in the UK anyway) cannot buy off the web with a
credit card: they insist on purchase orders - my own modest business
handles several hundred POs each year - which is why you need local
resellers.
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' www.sda.co.uk
Shareware Industry Conference 2006 sponsor www.sic.org
 

Dennis Cote writes:
I can not control at all what "signals" you think I am sending.
This whole thread started by wondering whether Delphi 7 can now legally be
hacked. The criteria was that it was not sold and not supported. I
wrote a true statement: Delphi 7 is still sold and supported.
I'm sorry you don't like my use, in that statement, of the word
"supported".
I've said nothing about how this will work going forward. However, I
will say that going forward, we will probably use the model that we and
virtually the entire shrinkwrapped software industry has used, and that
is gradually reducing the level of support for products as they become
older and superceded by newer versions.
Delphi 7 has been followed up by three releases. it is definitely
"aging" as far as support goes, however you want to define the word
"support".
are doing things differently, and I am confident that you see those
opportunities being taken advantage of in the coming months.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Jolyon Smith writes:
I agree that we should distinguish between these different kinds of
support, and I like your terminology better than mine. Indeed, what I
have stated has been lacking is maintenance, and what Borland/CodeGear
has been providing is technical assistance. I think we all, even Nick,
understood the different meaning each was using based on context, but
your improved terminology would make the discussion clearer.
In summary:
For years Borland has provided technical assistance to customers of its
products. It has generally not provided maintenance for a product after
a newer version has been released, even if it continued to actively sell
the product.
CodeGear has an opportunity to demonstrate how it will be more
responsive to its customers needs than Borland was, by committing to
provide ongoing maintenance for its products even after it has released
a new version.
If the new features in a new version are of real value then customers
will buy the upgrade to get those new features. They should not be
required to buy the new version to get fixes for bugs in the previous
version. Too much other stuff changes between versions for the upgrade
approach to be universally viable.
Dennis Cote
 

insert name writes:
any such thing. No need to worry.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
<worried>
 

TBQH I don't see the reason to go on and on about what has gone on
and on about... umm... whatever... you get the point.
Just let them do what they want to do how they want to do it and see
if the end result is what you like. Then you can upgrade, or don't
upgrade.
- Nate.
"insert name" <nospam@nospam>writes

John Stoneham writes:
update 1, Delphi 7 had absolutely no compiler optimisation?
Wow, that is bad.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
ons.
It doesn't matter one bit that there were 3 subsequent releases --
Delphi 7 was never fixed. I continue to be surprised at how you, as
Project Manager for Delphi, are ignoring that fact -- and yet you are
still selling it, with what certainly appears to be no intention of
fixing it.
This tells me one of 3 things:
1) The source code for the 7.0 compiler is lost.
2) No one is left who worked on the source code, so no one knows where
to look to fix anything even if they wanted to.
3) No one in Project Management cares whether it is fixed or not.
There is no 4th option.
Tell you what. Give me access to the compiler routines for cardinal
multiplication, and I will fix that dang "mul/imul invalid overflow bug"
myself. FOR FREE. Hell, it is just a typo.
But you know what? That code's already been fixed. It was fixed in the
7.1 update, which was broken itself, so we can not use it either. So how
hard would it be to cut-and-paste that one fix back into the 7.0
codebase and release a 7.0a update? I doubt it would be very difficult
or time-consuming, probably one day's work by one person. Unless we're
looking at options 1 or 2 above.
It is precisely because of this series of events that I have never
purchased a subsequent version. And as of today, no one has given me
any indication that things have changed.
I'm sure I am not alone.