Forum Posts Feed
ADM - continued from IM discussion
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Cassius
Jan 22, 2007 at 07:35 AM
I never used ADM, but I expect that there will be an English edition, as only the words in the on-screen interface need to be changed. The machine code for the actual operations should be the same no matter what the original language of the programming. A lot of American developers end up having the programming work done in the Eastern Hemisphere—it’s cheaper.
-c
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Jan 22, 2007 at 12:46 PM
There is an English edition already—version 4 in beta.
The concern is if and when it will come out as a finished product.
And given the prolonged process of developing version 4 whether further development might be smoother.
Given that this is a product that began in English in Vancouver, and ended up being developed in China, by the same non-Chinese owners, as both an English and Chinese product, one wonders where the priority lies.
As well, given the developer’s oft stated commitment to freedom of information flow and collaborative work, which was to be facilitated in a better way by ADM, and his admiration of Gandhi, there is an irony of it being developed in China—a country where the prevailing political culture is not known for its respect of freedom of information or human rights. The decision to moderate a list with virtually no traffic is much more reflective of Chinese thinking than the developer’s stated ideals.
Daly
Cassius wrote:
>I never used ADM, but I expect that there will be an English edition, as only the words in
>the on-screen interface need to be changed. The machine code for the actual
>operations should be the same no matter what the original language of the
>programming. A lot of American developers end up having the programming work done in
>the Eastern Hemisphere—it’s cheaper.
>
>-c
Posted by Cassius
Jan 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM
While I would agree that purchasing ADM is risky for all the reasons previously cited, including the long development time, I can perhaps note two items.
1. Software development does take a long time, if there isn’t a developer package with the needed functions built in.
2. 32-bit Zoot has taken MUCH longer, with NO end in sight.
-c
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Jan 23, 2007 at 03:03 AM
Cassius, I agree with your first point—software development does take a long time.
But your second point is like apples and oranges.
Here’s why.
Tom Davis, aka The Admiral, has not sold a single copy of Zoot on the basis that it was a beta of a 32-bit version of Zoot that would soon be released in its completed form.
In fact, The Admiral has been very careful to make no promises as to an ETA for Zoot 32.
While I think both Tom and Eric are visionaries in terms of creatively conceptualizing software, it should be apparent that The Admiral can out-program virtually anyone else out there, especially the ADM crew.
ADM has been marketing ADM 4 for a long time, initially with the understanding that people were putting out their money for a product that would soon come out of beta. In effect, Stephen Diamond was absolutely correct when he said people were paying a high price for beta software. If it was going to be a matter of weeks or a few months as Eric originally promised it would not have been a big issue. But when months have gone into years it is time to refund money to all those people who purchased a high priced beta, and to say that in reality no one has the foggiest idea when it will be released.
While people waited for ADM 4 Eric found time to play with Skype, and to meet the needs of the Chinese market. While some of us put our reputation on the line backing Eric and ADM, he stopped communicating, pissed people off, and locked down the trusted developers list.
A further difference with re to ADM and Zoot: Zoot in its 16 bit form is remarkably stable, on most 32-bit machines—and has a feature set that remains remarkably contemporary in spite of a somewhat dated GUI and a lack of RTF.
The Admiral has remained in touch with his user base through the Zoot user group, and has never pissed its owner off to the point that they decided to close the list.
Further, The Admiral has responded in a timely manner when Zooters have found bugs or issues with the software.
Cassius wrote:
>While I would agree that purchasing ADM is risky for all the reasons previously cited,
>including the long development time, I can perhaps note two items.
>
>1. Software
>development does take a long time, if there isn’t a developer package with the needed
>functions built in.
>
>2. 32-bit Zoot has taken MUCH longer, with NO end in sight.
>
>-c
Posted by Derek Cornish
Jan 23, 2007 at 05:49 AM
Daly -
> Zoot in its 16 bit form is remarkably stable, on most 32-bit machines—and has a feature set that remains remarkably contemporary in spite of a somewhat dated GUI and a lack of RTF.
I’d just add that even on those rare occasions when Zoot crashes, I have never yet lost any data. I also positively like the current GUI and hope that there will be an option to maintain its classic no-nonsense look in preference to any tarted-up interface dripping with icons :-) - not that that is the Admiral’s style. Ditto for RTF.
Zoot’s users have been remarkably sanguine about the timetable for a 32-bit Zoot for a number of reasons. First, Tom has made it a priority to de-bug the existing software and to add whatever improvements he could to it over the years. This made for a very rapid response to users up until v4.0 was published - after which he turned his attentions to the 32-bit conversion. Second, Zoot has always potential users a very long evaluation period within which to decide whether or not to purchase. Given the early lack of a decent Help file, this enabled people to try the software out, uninstall it, and reinstall it after taking a break at a health farm. Third, he has never charged for an update so far. Last, I think Zoot’s users have been aware of the pressures of being a sole developer and have been anxious not to add to that pressure by constantly asking for deadlines. Developer burnout is a very real problem (viz KeyNote).
Hence the lack of much current activity on the Zoot forum and an undoubted slow leaking of users to other software while they wait for the Zoot 4.5 version. The good news is that the 32-bit conversion, though not with the new rtf editor, should appear quite soon.
Derek