Upgrade to latest... always! - was "Why?"

Fri Jul 2 21:21:52 PDT 2004

I hate to add to this longggggggg thread... but I'll do it in this
"top-post". Those who couldn't read some of the quoted text in this thread
(and other threads as well) were experiencing only _slight_ trauma compared
to what my screen reader sounds like reading them... :-) I've also changed
the topic to reflect what my comments are about.

Just another exhortation to upgrade to the latest version of filePro you are
entitled to receive. Anything else is folly and short-sighted. I can name at
least 7 people who are _really_ unhappy because they did not upgrade their
4.8.x versions to the latest and greatest while they had the chance... even
those with 4.8.10 have some rather serious problems... Had they only
obtained the 4.8.12 (and maybe even a couple higher) versions, they would be
much happier today. The very same goes for 5.0.x. Not wanting to upgrade
because you think the latest version might harm your programming... well,
like I said, folly and short-sighted. The newer versions of filePro only fix
bugs and add features. Your programming should not suffer _any_ ill effects
from upgrading. A possible (but desirable) exception is when, say a new
environment variable is added to change the behavior of some condition that
was not working properly... or not a good _default_ behavior. These are all
noted clearly in the readme's of the upgrade release. I can remember several
times when such things broke my programs for a short while until I made the
corrections, but they have always been for the better. A couple examples I
can remember are when an upgrade disallowed certain punctuation in labels.
Or an even more important one where the upgrade made the consequence of
pressing BREAK at an input question more predictable. Another was the
ability to ignore the DKNF errors and not even display them...  All of these
upgrades made filePro more reliable and tightened up the processing one
should use to make it work correctly. However, I have actually seen
programming since these types of updates were made where the programmer has
chosen to include the environment variable to make filePro work in the old,
i.e., broken way, rather than just fix their process tables. Too bad, kind
of a dumb thing to do in my opinion... but at least filePro usually (could
probably even say always) gives the opportunity to maintain the
"old/un-updated/broken" way of doing things with an environment variable.
Sometimes the "old" way is not actually "broken", just not preferable. One
environment variable that I remember changed the way -nl worked on lookups
when retrieving its record if there was a group of records with the same
key. One way (the old way retrieved the first record in the group. The new
way retrieved the last record in the group. (Far more preferable if you are
trying to get the last record in an index.)  So the new way was chosen as
the default operation and the environment variable was provided if your
programming had been relying on it working in the "old" way.  Would anyone
have wanted the old (not-so-good, not as preferable) way set as the default
just because it might have been used that way by programmers in the past?
Not me, I'd rather be informed of the change and allowed to adjust my
thinking and programming to the new/updated way. The environment variable
might be nice for a short time to give me a chance to change the affected
processing, but otherwise, moving on up is always my choice.

I'm telling everyone here that the 5.0.13 release is pretty damn good...
but, it certainly has many bugs and problems that will be (and are already)
fixed in what I suppose will be 5.0.14. Not getting that latest version
would be a _real_ blunder... again, folly and short-sighted.  I do not want
to be in the boat of the people who do not have the latest and greatest copy
when the version level changes a couple times and this one is no longer
supported, and the updates not available.  You can start and re-start the
whole argument about what is and should be supported, but if FP Tech is
going to do it the way they've stated... then there will not be any
available 5.0.14's when 5.0.2 is released. If you are the type who does not
want to upgrade for _whatever_ reason you have, then you will be *stuck*
with the version that you are so unhappy with now. :-)  In the face of how
FP Tech is handling filePro versions and releases, the only thing anyone
should do is upgrade as soon as new releases are ready.

By the way. I don't understand the whole concept of not wanting to upgrade
and couldn't adopt that position even if I wanted to do so. The support
contracts we have with many vendors, some of them costing several thousand
dollars a year, require that we abide by their "rules" and "procedures". If
we call to complain about a certain behavior, the support rep will go
through the usual litany... "Do you have the latest version on your system?"
If not, they will lead you through the steps to get it on the system. Then,
and only the, if the problem still exists will it be assigned a tracking
number and treated as an incident, etc. This is high-level, costly,
professional support I'm talking about. They are tasked to solve the
problems, period, and I don't mind following their procedures to get to the
bottom of any problem. I don't see why FP Tech should be asked to treat any
problem in some other way... at least not with their supported versions. It
is not to much to ask that the end-user be using the latest version of the
program, in fact is is SOP _everywhere_.  If you don't believe this, try the
support teams even at places that don't charge for the support. Call UPS and
ask a question about World-Ship. If the first question out of the tech's
mouth is not "What version are you running, please press Help/About..."
I'll eat my words.

Throwing in one more opinion. I do not believe any minor upgrade, i.e., an
upgrade from 5.0.x to the latest 5.0.n version should cost any money... and
I don't think FP Tech charges for these... so there is really no good reason
not to upgrade as releases become available. As for moving up from 5.0.x to
5.1.n. This will cost some money. It should. The features added in a major
number change should warrant the charge and nobody should have any reason to
complain about this. As for moving from 5.x.n to 6.x.n, well, that should
cost even more again.  And who would complain?  Not me.

John Esak

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com]On Behalf Of Kenneth
> Brody
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 2:39 PM
> To: George Simon
> Cc: filePro mailing list
> Subject: Re: Why?
>
>
> George Simon wrote:
> [...]
> > If they can't make it happen using rreport 5.0.13, we'll just
> have to assume
> > that it has been fixed.
> [...]
>
> At which point, will you get the 5.0.13 update?
>
> --
> +-------------------------+--------------------+------------------
-----------+
> | Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |
>            |
> | kenbrody at spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     | #include
> <std_disclaimer.h> |
> +-------------------------+--------------------+------------------
-----------+
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list