#Avant-Garde & M2S
9 messages in this thread
Wayne:
I don't know if the first part of your message, regarding your technical
problems has any truth in it. (Since you have never bothered to call or
write for technical support). But, I know the second part of your
slanderous message is certainly without a shread of truth.
>> Leon Frenkel <<
Leon –
I am an M2Sprint owner. Are you going to be upgrading M2Sprint to work
with KS/WB 2.0 if needed? Are we going to see enhancements to the compile
environment? i.e., before M2S went under, we were told about some
improvements that were under developement. Are you continuing with these
developements? Or is what we have all we're going to get?
Harry
Harry:
As I mentioned in a another message a while back in the AmigaVendor forum
while M2S talked about all kinds of "enhancements", none were actually
developed. Unlike the practices of M2S and company I do not belive in
making claims until I have something to ship. So, the direct answer to your
question is version 1.12 of M2Sprint is the latest version being shipped
and is being fully supported. (Though the level of interest in technical
support seems very low, we get about 2 calls a month).
>> Leon Frenkel <<
Leon –
The last version I heard about (and received) was 1.10. What is the best
way to get myself updated to 1.12? And, without getting specific about what
you may or may not be doing, can you give a yes or no on the question of
further development of the package? I'd simply like to know whether or not
I should begin looking at other packages for enhancements. As much as I'd
hate to have to pay full price for another package, if M2Sprint has reached
the end of its development that's what I'll have to do. Thanks …
Harry
Harry,
I think you have the latest version. The release was called 1.10, the
editor shows 1.11 in its "About " panel. Apparently upgrades were called
1.11 and New Sale packages 1.12 for some administrative reason. An
improved (and faster) debugger called 1.12 was later uploaded to the
library in Vendor. Confusing I agree. My disks are labelled 1.10. There
was only the one upgrade that I heard about.
Kevin
Harry:
The files in M2Sprint version 1.12 have 1.10 and 1.11 used in various
places. So, I believe you have the latest version. At this moment there is
no development going on for M2Sprint for the simple reason that it does not
require it. Before, you consider purchasing another package as a
replacement you might consider what makes another package a better choice.
M2Sprint is a fast compiler, produces good code and is easy to use. What
more can one ask for. That's my opinion for what it's worth.
>> Leon Frenkel <<
P.S. If you have a specific problem with M2Sprint just give me a call or
write a letter describing the problem. I am always happy to provide
technical support.
Leon –
OK, thanks for the information. As far as not requiring further
development, I have yet to see a software product that (IMHO) could not
benefit from enhancements. In M2Sprint's case, an optimizing compiler and a
smart linker would make vast improvements in program speed and size areas.
It might take a little longer to compile, but the end product (IMHO) would
be well worth it. Anyway, I'm on Martin's mailing list if and when he
releases the product he's working on, which includes those features. Thanks
again.
Harry
Leon,
Sorry if you considered it slanderous, but you are the source. So if it is
untrue you need to retract statements you made in reply to some queries
that wer made in vendor.
1. You admitted to being innvolved heavily (would initiator be accurate?)
of the M2S buy out. Shrewd business – buy out the competion using a 3rd
party set-up to sheild the buyer from identification. Nothing wrong from a
business standpoint. But I've never been enamored of business ethics which
is why I don't work for myself.
2. You made the stamement in reply to questions about disenfranchised M2S
owners that there were less than 300 of them. This appeared to be offered
as a reason why the product could die, as not many people would suffer.
3. You were apparantly instrumental (if I understand YOUR comments in
vendor correctly) in the dismissal/departure of the latest M2S rep in the
vendor forum.
Now, if I completley missed the point of your exchange with others on
vendor, please, please set me straight. A statement of stratigic plans for
M2S (dates aren't required) would go a long way in proving to other readers
what a scurilous scoundrel I am and what benficient captain of industry you
are. As I recall, to date you have not revealed such plans. And in fact it
was you who said it wasn't worth the effort to contact the "less than 300"
owners of M2S to tell them of the ownership change, cancellation of rev 2.0
version, and cessation of M2S representation on CIS by other than Benchmark
(you are Benchmark, verdad?). You haven't expressed any indication that
M2S will ever be updated at all, or perhaps I just missed those messages.
If it were me, I would have contacted everyone, explained the coup, and
offered a reasonable exchange deal to Benchmark, thereby assuring goodwill
and a potiential 200 customer base increase for later products. But I guess
thats why you are the businessman and I am still a technobilly. I still
don't like deals that leave customers in a cross-fire and choose not to
economically support companies that engage
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
in that kind of deal. If that is "slanderous", then so be it, but you have
yet to show me anything that shows that M2S owners were considered in the
deal at all. Like I said, as a businessman you have no obligation to the
customers of a vanquished competitor. As a 20th century enlightened
indivudual who practices business, you might consider them as a market
increase if treated with some little gesture (not one that breaks the bank
– it could be just a "hi, how are you, were the new owners and want toget
to know ya.." letter) that says "you are important to my business" instead
of "since there are less than 300 of you it id not worth it for ust to
contact you."
Think aobut it….
3.
wmc