Upgrade price

thesmith · Joined: 18 Aug 2009 Posts: 2

You lot are cheeky asking for payment to upgrade from 2 to 2.5, there is bugger all improvement. This should be a free upgrade.

TGRMN Software · Site Admin Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 8759

Hi, there are some major improvements in version 2.5, but it's not a required upgrade.
_________________
--
TGRMN Software Support
http://www.tgrmn.com
http://www.compareandmerge.com

tdracz · Joined: 05 Nov 2008 Posts: 12

2.5 is a minor release. You were previously advertising that only major releases (like to v3) are not free and minor releases are free. See e.g. the 4th post from the top at http://www.tgrmn.com/web/forum/viewtopict1967&highlight=upgrade.htm .

What is going on? The price is definitely too steep.

TGRMN Software · Site Admin Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 8759

Hi, there are some major improvements, and new features, in version 2.5, that's why the upgrade is not free. All minor builds with bug fixes that we released in the last couple of years were free. Version 2.5 is not a required upgrade: if you do not need the new features you can wait until enough significant features are added before you decide to upgrade.
thanks
_________________
--
TGRMN Software Support
http://www.tgrmn.com
http://www.compareandmerge.com

DaBiz · Joined: 22 Aug 2009 Posts: 1

As the others have already intimated this version is nothing more than a minor upgrade.

In fact, looking at the the so-called feature list, it's more like a bunch of bug fixes and a handful of minor "enhancements" . . . which only qualifies this version as a dot release, not a major make over.

Sure as hell I won't be paying for it . . . I've already uninstalled 2.5 and gone back to 2.0 . . . only bugger is that all of the scripts I have set up have been deleted in the uninstall :O(.

tdracz · Joined: 05 Nov 2008 Posts: 12

This is a REQUIRED upgrade for us, because the archive viewer is broken in 2.0 for UNC paths, so it is not even possible to restore. I have reported this problem long time ago ( http://www.tgrmn.com/web/forum/viewtopict2425.htm ) and one more here: http://www.tgrmn.com/web/forum/viewtopict2424.htm and waited for this upgrade to finally have a working product and it turns out we now have to pay for what should be working in the first place. Why didn't you release a bug fix release?? We don't need all those 'major' features in 2.5, we only need those two bug fixes!

TGRMN Software · Site Admin Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 8759

tdracz, I do remember your two problem reports, can you please write to support@tgrmn.com ? thank you
_________________
--
TGRMN Software Support
http://www.tgrmn.com
http://www.compareandmerge.com

thesmith · Joined: 18 Aug 2009 Posts: 2

TGRMN Software · Site Admin Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 8759

Hi thesmith,

There are two fixes that we are considering adding to a new build of ViceVersa PRO 2, these are:

- Fixed possible issue during file archiving: if a file had a '.' or a '[' in the file extension (quite rare), ViceVersa PRO would crash. This is now fixed.
- Fixed issue with using \\UNC\ or \\?\ notation in the archive path.

I appreciate your feedback. But would also like to highlight that this is the first non-free ViceVersa PRO 2 upgrade we have released in 3 years. All previous fixes, including porting to Windows Vista (that required some major changes), have been free. See list of changes at:
http://www.tgrmn.com/web/forum/viewtopict2271.htm

thanks
_________________
--
TGRMN Software Support
http://www.tgrmn.com
http://www.compareandmerge.com

Peterw · Joined: 07 Sep 2009 Posts: 1

I agree with most of the posts made here. Version 2.5 should not be a paid upgrade.

What irks me even more is that I purchased Version 2.0 less than 3 weeks before Version 2.5 was released.

Surely there should be a free upgrade for a person purchasing Version 2.0 so shortly before the release of Version 2.5?

TGRMN Software · Site Admin Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 8759

Hello peterw,

Stu · Joined: 03 Oct 2008 Posts: 4

I have to admit I was surprised to see that my 2.0 license wasn't valid with this upgrade. You guys have the dubious honor of being the first software house I have ever purchased from that charged a hefty price for a ".5" upgrade. Surely you foresaw this as a problem. Wouldn't it have been easier to call it 3.0 and avoid all this negative press.

I can only assume you didn't call it 3.0 for a reason, and, as such, it should be considered a minor update.

Some people will probably avoid your product now simply because of this inconsistancy in your stated upgrade policy and your actual upgrade practice. You made a bad decision.

Very dissappointed Crying or Very sad

-stu

Fry · Joined: 17 Feb 2007 Posts: 9

Give TGRMN a chance folks! I'm sure they'll want to do the right thing.

I was surprised, and disappointed, to see that there is a version 2.5 out--and, if I want it, I have to pay for it. That is not what was agreed upon (contracted to) when I originally purchased 2.0. Further, I don't think anything could have been lost in translation here. Any reasonable person would understand the next *major* version (i.e. the version that requires payment in order to obtain) to be v3.0 (as opposed to fixes/features that you subjectively deem to be "major" enough to require payment for upgrade). The number "5" in v2.5 indicates the minor version number--the very version which you plainly stated to be a free update to those who paid for version 2.0.

It's right vs. wrong and whether you've realized it or not up to this point, you're clearly doing the wrong thing here.

Not too late to make it right though.

Do the right thing and let people know that you're a company with integrity. . . that when you say free minor version updates, you mean free minor version updates.

"The most common software versioning scheme is a scheme in which different major releases of the software each receive a unique numerical identifier. This is typically expressed as three numbers, separated by periods, such as version 2.4.13. One very commonly followed structure for these numbers is:

major.minor[.revision[.build]]

or

major.minor[.maintenance[.build]]"

---Quote source: haacked(dot)com

noetus · Joined: 22 Oct 2009 Posts: 2

Just want to also voice my disappointment here as a paid-up v2 user (for many years). I think either this should be either a minor free upgrade, or a major (i.e v3) paid upgrade. I don't understand why VV has taken this route, it surely will push old faithful users like myself away.

Judging by the replies so far, I'm not conviced they'll "do the right thing" here. Update was released in Aug, it's now almost Nov and nothing has changed. At the very least reduce the upgrade price by 50% and make that retroactive for people who already upgraded.

genem · Joined: 17 Apr 2009 Posts: 10

Likewise, I'm new user just coming in at Build 2015. Purchased Pro and Engine, and 2500 is my first upgrade opportunity. I knew 2015 was due for a rev and I used the trial as long as I could. But, had to eventually purchase and 2500 was still a couple of months out.

While I see their point that many upgrades have been free in the past, I regret not being a beneficiary of that. Would have been nice to at least get one or two upgrades for free after your initial purchase, or, say, for the first year.

To be fair, upon inquiry I was 'offered' a reduced price but no mention what that would be. I was thinking once I forked that over, Engine will rev and I'll need to pay again.

Staying with 2015; bummer.