Adobe Nails ColdFusion Cofin

http://dalefraser.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-nails-coldfusion-cofin.html Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com

Dale, I'd suggest posting the content of your blog here rather than just the url. As for your post on CF 8 being a dead product because of the price increase, note that the increase if for Enterprise. How many people here (other than me) actually use or need enterprise. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

To add to the point, who has Enterprise without maintenance? CF8 is costing us precisely zip over what we've already paid (and considering what we get the maintenance was a bargain). ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

How many people use it? After this stunt, not many I hope. Almost 6 times the price is just stupid. I had budget allocated to upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, first time to purchase Enterprise, that just went out the door.

6 times? I think your talking apples and rocks. Both are roundish, but.... The 6 times your talking about is the cost of moving from standard to enterprise. For those who are not making that major leap (most everyone), the figure of 6 times is just a scare tactic. As for who's using it, many people including sites under the House of Fusion banner, like Fusion Authority. House of Fusion itself will be moved to 8 as soon as I have another free second (and after Jury Duty who's timing sucks). > How many people use it? > > After this stunt, not many I hope. Almost 6 times the price is just stupid. > > I had budget allocated to upgrade from Standard to Enterprise, first time to purchase Enterprise, that just went out the door.

Adobe today put some nails in the ColdFusion coffin with the Release of ColdFusion 8. To the suprise of the world, they decided to increase the price by 25%. What a joke when the biggest complaint is the price when compared to like products. I'm not sure who made this decission, or if any big shot in Adobe even fought for a price reduction but Adobe's one and only shot at doing something significant with ColdFusion 8 has been ruined. I will now seriously consider the future of our developments here and look at alternatives that won't cost be $7,499 US per server. Ben and the team, great product you should be proud, but I'm ashamed that you let this happen.

> As for your post on CF 8 being a dead product because of the price > increase, note that the increase if for Enterprise. How many people > here (other than me) actually use or need enterprise. Me! To be honest, the difference between $3,000/CPU and $3,750/CPU is pretty negligible in an enterprise world. For the - new-in-8 - (multi-)server monitoring and RDS/Admin user management features, unlimited CFTHREAD and unlimited MS Exchange integration, that extra $750/CPU is well worth it (as well as the general reasons Enterprise is worth paying more for: unlimited event gateways, PDF/document services, reporting etc). The key thing everyone should be rejoicing about is that Standard Edition includes: event gateways, pdf/document services, cfthread, MS Exchange integration, reporting, presentation generation. There would be a lot of complaints if these were Enterprise only features. There were plenty of complaints around CFMX 7 because event gateways were Enterprise-only! -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

I want to echo what Sean said...I looked at CF8 and thought, "wow finally a product that I would really label Enterprise." Not to say CF7 wasn't Enterprise, it had some great features and was a great release, but I think the monitoring and some of the Administration changes helped make it really enterprise friendly. Thats not mentioning the performance enhancements, exchange integration (which currently means nothing to Lotus Shops bleh), and whole suite of ajax tools that really make CF shine as a UI web layer for large Java apps. You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to you unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are throttled but they are available and until you have 100+ (dare I say probably more) concurrent users using the exact same functionality Enterprise means very little. Its like a computer, my Mom doesn't need a dual core 64bit AMD with 2gig of ram and 256mb dedicate graphics card running iSCSI to send me pictures and read email (unless she is running Vista then she might ;) ). Gone are the days where you have to have enterprise to play with those nifty event gateways. If enterprise looks to expensive to you then you probably don't need it, or you need to look at some other Enterprise software costs and revisit in 15 minutes. Hell I say that single move by Adobe to offer a more complete Standard Edition will open more doors for ColdFusion than any single feature. I say Bravo! Adam Haskell ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to > you > unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit > limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are > throttled Has anyone got a matrix of just *how* the PDF is throtted?  Because I'm quoting for a big form-based app at the moment, and I would like to know what the limitations are with PDF in standard as opposed to Enterprise. p.s. why don't people *trim* their quoting! -- mac jordan home: www.kestrel.org work: www.webhorus.net them: www.jordan-cats.org

So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in CF. For example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. You know, I don't disagree with them. I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. Adobe thanks for the memories, a user/developer since version 4.5. - Charles On 7/30/07 5:27 AM, "Adam Haskell" <a.haskell@gmail.com> wrote: I want to echo what Sean said...I looked at CF8 and thought, "wow finally a product that I would really label Enterprise." Not to say CF7 wasn't Enterprise, it had some great features and was a great release, but I think the monitoring and some of the Administration changes helped make it really enterprise friendly. Thats not mentioning the performance enhancements, exchange integration (which currently means nothing to Lotus Shops bleh), and whole suite of ajax tools that really make CF shine as a UI web layer for large Java apps. You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to you unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are throttled but they are available and until you have 100+ (dare I say probably more) concurrent users using the exact same functionality Enterprise means very little. Its like a computer, my Mom doesn't need a dual core 64bit AMD with 2gig of ram and 256mb dedicate graphics card running iSCSI to send me pictures and read email (unless she is running Vista then she might ;) ). Gone are the days where you have to have enterprise to play with those nifty event gateways. If enterprise looks to expensive to you then you probably don't need it, or you need to look at some other Enterprise software costs and revisit in 15 minutes. Hell I say that single move by Adobe to offer a more complete Standard Edition will open more doors for ColdFusion than any single feature. I say Bravo! Adam Haskell ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out..... Be careful on this one. For instance, when .NET 2.0 came out, and we wanted to upgrade our servers, we discovered that a lot of our 1.0 apps would not work. So in order for us to do this we had to re-write a lot of our apps. Not from the ground up mind you, just update some code that was not backwards compatable and would have caused a LOT of issues had we not looked into this. Not sure if this is still an issue with Microsoft since I have not touched .NET in over a year, but you might want to look into this part of it. Bruce >

You can use the Oracle j2ee drivers (that comes with Oracle) to work with CF standard. Just a little more work on your end, but it works fine. This is for Oracle 10g, it may be slightly different for other versions.. -Find the ojdbc14.jar driver on your oracle installation -Put that jar into your WEB-INF\lib -In coldfusion, create a new datasource and choose "other" as the driver   -JDBC URL would be jdbc:oracle:thin:@ip:port:database   -Driver Class oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver Now why does CF standard not just go ahead and do this for you. Well franky I don't know, but it really doesn't matter if you have the drivers anyway. It does confuse the hack out of people, which is bad. Wanted to make sure you knew this before you decided to jump ship :) John mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - Specializing in ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in CF. For example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. You know, I don't disagree with them. I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. Adobe thanks for the memories, a user/developer since version 4.5. - Charles On 7/30/07 5:27 AM, "Adam Haskell" <a.haskell@gmail.com> wrote: I want to echo what Sean said...I looked at CF8 and thought, "wow finally a product that I would really label Enterprise." Not to say CF7 wasn't Enterprise, it had some great features and was a great release, but I think the monitoring and some of the Administration changes helped make it really enterprise friendly. Thats not mentioning the performance enhancements, exchange integration (which currently means nothing to Lotus Shops bleh), and whole suite of ajax tools that really make CF shine as a UI web layer for large Java apps. You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to you unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are throttled but they are available and until you have 100+ (dare I say probably more) concurrent users using the exact same functionality Enterprise means very little. Its like a computer, my Mom doesn't need a dual core 64bit AMD with 2gig of ram and 256mb dedicate graphics card running iSCSI to send me pictures and read email (unless she is running Vista then she might ;) ). Gone are the days where you have to have enterprise to play with those nifty event gateways. If enterprise looks to expensive to you then you probably don't need it, or you need to look at some other Enterprise software costs and revisit in 15 minutes. Hell I say that single move by Adobe to offer a more complete Standard Edition will open more doors for ColdFusion than any single feature. I say Bravo! Adam Haskell ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

John, From what I know (or remember) of the legalities of it all - it is actually rather expensive for CF to ship with a driver, as there are a slew of licensing costs.  This was one of the reasons it took so long to get postGres and mySQL5 drivers with CF. But there has never, ever been any issue with you adding them in yourself, as then the licence isn't bound to the CF product. Annoying, I know, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Mark ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in CF. For > example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access > and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle > connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with You might also just buy Standard and use a third party oracle driver. I connect quite happily to DB2 with standard using a different driver for example. Enterprise comes with high quality drivers for enterprise DBs - but Standard is not limited to those drivers that ship with it. Jim Davis

Charles, Why not just use Standard, and use the free JDBC drivers you can download from Oracle themselves, and just make an 'other' connection? What's the problem with that? I hate to say this, I have to wonder - if your business is complaining about paying ~10K for their server software, (or less), then you probably struggle to qualify for the 'enterprise' target that ColdFusion really is targeted for. (and most of us aren't, we're just paying for upgrades). Maybe I'm too far removed from the bean counters (and that is quite possible), but I actually am quite confused by all of this noise. I'm actually sitting back and looking at all the new features that were put in Standard, which is meant for people who aren't enterprise, and going 'cool! loads of new stuff, without a price hike... nice work for targeting those that aren't enterprise, and essentially giving them more for less cost in a product'. Mark ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Mark Mandel wrote: > Charles, > > Why not just use Standard, and use the free JDBC drivers you can > download from Oracle themselves, and just make an 'other' connection? > > What's the problem with that? No ref_cursor support.  That's only provided with the enterprise drivers built in to CF.  Just to name one ;). Matthew Williams Geodesic GraFX www.geodesicgrafx.com/blog

Unless the Oracle supplied driver has changed recently, some things don't work the same as the DataDirect CF Oracle driver, like stored procs returning results from ref cursors and BLOBS. If it has changed, great. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You have to use the Thin client and then it works fine. Eric Unless the Oracle supplied driver has changed recently, some things don't work the same as the DataDirect CF Oracle driver, like stored procs returning results from ref cursors and BLOBS. If it has changed, great. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. You know, I don't disagree with them. I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- finally a > > product that I would really label Enterprise." Not to say CF7 wasn't > > Enterprise, it had some great features and was a great release, but I think > > the monitoring and some of the Administration changes helped make it really > > enterprise friendly. Thats not mentioning the performance enhancements, > > exchange integration (which currently means nothing to Lotus Shops bleh), > > and whole suite of ajax tools that really make CF shine as a UI web layer > > for large Java apps. > > > > You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to you > > unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit > > limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- to > > expensive to you then you probably don't need it, or you need to look at > > some other Enterprise software costs and revisit in 15 minutes. Hell I say ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

A quick check of the latest Oracle thin client download page shows that Java up to 1.5 is supported. Since CF8 ships with Java 6, there may be a further issue. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

I will keep that in mind...I just know that was the solution for 6 and 7.  I would assume they would be releasing something that is compatable with 1.6 in the near future.  Mark this down as one of the many reasons why I dislike Oracle *grin*. Eric A quick check of the latest Oracle thin client download page shows that Java up to 1.5 is supported. Since CF8 ships with Java 6, there may be a further issue. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

> Charles, > > Why not just use Standard, and use the free JDBC drivers you can > download from Oracle themselves, and just make an 'other' connection? Or, you can buy the DataDirect Oracle driver yourself: http://www.programmers.com/ppi_us/Product.aspx?sku=DB1%20017X Of course, once you see what it costs retail, you may rethink CF Enterprise being "expensive"....

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- No doubt about that!  DB2 drivers are REALLY REALLY expensive.  IBM wanted to charge us like $30k for "DB2/Connect" to give us the JDBC drivers direct from IBM. If you use free drivers, you get no support from Adobe.  Or anyone. At least with CF Enterprise using the included drivers, you get support from Adobe if you need it. Rick

>I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. How is the .NET code for a webservice easier than writing access="remote"? -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

The .Net development not only creates the web service but it also creates WSDL and a Test page to test the web service. Which is really slick compared to what CF produces. I've also found the web service code generated by CF does not include the proper header info, which has caused some application developers a headache consuming some of the web services. On 7/30/07 6:06 PM, "James Holmes" <james.holmes@gmail.com> wrote: >I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. How is the .NET code for a webservice easier than writing access="remote"? -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

So it makes the WSDL and a test page. CF makes the WSDL as well. Now a test page - I grant you - would be nice. That could be a good edition to CFEclipse. I haven't heard of any issues with the WSDL CF produces. Have you logged bug reports for these? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

And if we are going to compare Web Service features - CF makes automatic documentation for web services. That's probably just as useful as a test page. :) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Charles E. Heizer1 wrote: > to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an > enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said > we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and > not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. your "enterprise" shop will pay to re-train developers but not an extra $2000 for their app server? geez, that's the stupidest thing i've heard in a long while and working w/the government here, i hear a lot of really dumb ideas.

"working w/the government here, i hear a lot of really dumb ideas." Where are my tax dollars going. Thanks, CC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Hastings <paul@sustainableGIS.com> 07/30/2007 08:36 PM Please respond to cf-talk@houseoffusion.com To CF-Talk <cf-talk@houseoffusion.com> cc Subject Re: Adobe Nails ColdFusion Cofin Charles E. Heizer1 wrote: > to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an > enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said > we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and > not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. your "enterprise" shop will pay to re-train developers but not an extra $2000 for their app server? geez, that's the stupidest thing i've heard in a long while and working w/the government here, i hear a lot of really dumb ideas.

> To be honest, the difference between $3,000/CPU and $3,750/CPU is > pretty negligible in an enterprise world. I would agree here.  The cost of the server is pretty minor compared to the cost of everything else that goes into building an enterprise environment. Especially when you consider the following: #1 - Coldfusion Enterprise includes a LOT of things that you'd probably have to pay extra for in other environments. #2 - It's a LOT easier to develop advanced applications in Coldfusion versus OTHER environments (IMO, obviously) As a developer working 40 hours a week at a certain "hourly" rate... if I'm even 10% more productive working on Coldfusion versus another environment, that alone makes the COST of Coldfusion worthwhile. Let's say the cost of my employment, including benefits, is about $50/hour.  The 10% productivity increase would amount to 208 hours, or an additional $10,000 in work completed in a typical 2080 hour work year. Assuming the life of a Coldfusion 8 license is only 2 years and you're not buying a subscription... that's over $20,000 in savings.. just by using Coldfusion because you can be more productive on it. want to do document searching (Verity) or PDF creation (cfdocument) or enterprise-level reporting (cfreport) or high quality charting (cfchart) with ASP.NET, Java, or PHP?  In addition to the extra work required to do those things with third party softare - you'll probably fork out $$$ for that third party software too. Rick

Rick... You make compelling arguments. But IMO, if you have to explain the ROI to someone, then you've already lost the battle. There might be a few people that would be convinced by your (compelling) arguments. But most people are going to see that price tag and not even BOTHER reading the rest of the stuff about it. They'll simply think "CF is too much for my budget" and go install PHP or something. andy > > To be honest, the difference between $3,000/CPU and $3,750/CPU is > pretty negligible in an enterprise world. I would agree here.  The cost of the server is pretty minor compared to the cost of everything else that goes into building an enterprise environment. Especially when you consider the following: #1 - Coldfusion Enterprise includes a LOT of things that you'd probably have to pay extra for in other environments. #2 - It's a LOT easier to develop advanced applications in Coldfusion versus OTHER environments (IMO, obviously) As a developer working 40 hours a week at a certain "hourly" rate... if I'm even 10% more productive working on Coldfusion versus another environment, that alone makes the COST of Coldfusion worthwhile. Let's say the cost of my employment, including benefits, is about $50/hour. The 10% productivity increase would amount to 208 hours, or an additional $10,000 in work completed in a typical 2080 hour work year. Assuming the life of a Coldfusion 8 license is only 2 years and you're not buying a subscription... that's over $20,000 in savings.. just by using Coldfusion because you can be more productive on it.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Well, that would be sad if someone did that. If someone can't calculate an ROI, they're incompetent to run a company. CoolJJ

Yes and its not the type of client prospect you should waste time and effort on. > Well, that would be sad if someone did that. If someone can't calculate an ROI, they're incompetent to run a company. > > CoolJJ

That's a ridiculous statement Rey...   Just because a client doesn't want to drop 1/4 or 1/5 oif their budget on an application server doesn't mean that they're not worth doing business with. andy Yes and its not the type of client prospect you should waste time and effort on. > Well, that would be sad if someone did that. If someone can't calculate an ROI, they're incompetent to run a company. > > CoolJJ > >

Again, we'll disagree. If a client is not willing to spend the money it takes to build their site the right way, then to me, its not worth wasting my time on them. And to date, I've been "ridiculously" successful by doing just that. Just as my clients are selective about whom they choose, I'm selective about the clients that I work with. Rey... Andy Matthews wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

If they think that then their business already lost the battle... Eric Rick... You make compelling arguments. But IMO, if you have to explain the ROI to someone, then you've already lost the battle. There might be a few people that would be convinced by your (compelling) arguments. But most people are going to see that price tag and not even BOTHER reading the rest of the stuff about it. They'll simply think "CF is too much for my budget" and go install PHP or something. andy > > To be honest, the difference between $3,000/CPU and $3,750/CPU is > pretty negligible in an enterprise world. I would agree here.  The cost of the server is pretty minor compared to the cost of everything else that goes into building an enterprise environment. Especially when you consider the following: #1 - Coldfusion Enterprise includes a LOT of things that you'd probably have to pay extra for in other environments. #2 - It's a LOT easier to develop advanced applications in Coldfusion versus OTHER environments (IMO, obviously) As a developer working 40 hours a week at a certain "hourly" rate... if I'm even 10% more productive working on Coldfusion versus another environment, that alone makes the COST of Coldfusion worthwhile. Let's say the cost of my employment, including benefits, is about $50/hour. The 10% productivity increase would amount to 208 hours, or an additional $10,000 in work completed in a typical 2080 hour work year. Assuming the life of a Coldfusion 8 license is only 2 years and you're not buying a subscription... that's over $20,000 in savings.. just by using Coldfusion because you can be more productive on it.

I don't get this at all. People are flipping out about Enterprise going up in cost. How many people run Enterprise?! The standard version stays the same and gets a huge bump in features. The people complaining are talking like they raised the price of both versions. CF standard is a STEAL at $1299, especially with what they have added. To people who need extremely high performance (server monitoring, unlimited cfthread, etc.), multiple instances, gov't approved encryption, and all the rest, $7,500 is nothing for an enterprise application server that does everything CF does as easily as CF does it. For goodness sake people, take a deep breath and stop freaking out.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- hear hear!!  some folks need to get over themselves....pretty sad life when all you look forward to is blogging about how you think others decisions are bad IMHO stupid stupid trolls! Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: bryan@electricedgesystems.com web: www.electricedgesystems.com Notice: This message, including any attachments, is confidential and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed unless expressly authorized otherwise by the sender. If you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately and permanently destroy all copies of this message and attachments.

I tend to be skeptical of earth-shattering predictions coming from someone who can't spell 'coffin'.  :) I don't get this at all. People are flipping out about Enterprise going up in cost. How many people run Enterprise?! The standard version stays the same and gets a huge bump in features. The people complaining are talking like they raised the price of both versions. CF standard is a STEAL at $1299, especially with what they have added. To people who need extremely high performance (server monitoring, unlimited cfthread, etc.), multiple instances, gov't approved encryption, and all the rest, $7,500 is nothing for an enterprise application server that does everything CF does as easily as CF does it. For goodness sake people, take a deep breath and stop freaking out.

At my group in Motorola we have 5 CF enterprise licenses.  We don't pay for upgrades, instead we pay ~1500 per license in maintenance and it lasts for 2 years. And yes, $7,500 is nothing to an enterprise company. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Small point to bear in mind here, which always pops into my head when I hear this argument. Let's say I am on $50/hr like you say, therefore for myself to pay for CF8 Ent, I'm looking at working at least 150 hours before it's paid for.  OK, I may be 10% more productive than PHP, but if I were using CF then I would only save 208 hours per year over PHP (150 are spent paying for the license as well). So, at the end of my year, I'm 58 profit hours up. i.e $2900. If I had more than one server (say one dev, one test), I'd be out of pocket to the tune of $4600. It's not such a massive amount after all.   Neil

Small point to bear in mind here, which always pops into my head when I hear this argument. Let's say I am on $50/hr like you say, therefore for myself to pay for CF8 Ent, I'm looking at working at least 150 hours before it's paid for.  OK, I may be 10% more productive than PHP, but if I were using CF then I would only save 208 hours per year over PHP (150 are spent paying for the license as well). So, at the end of my year, I'm 58 profit hours up. i.e $2900. If I had more than one server (say one dev, one test), I'd be out of pocket to the tune of $4600. It's not such a massive amount after all. ~~~ Neil You think about this all wrong, you should be charging your clients for hosting, then it's not out of pocket at all. you might take a slight larger hit for upgrading but in the end your clients flip the bill for hosting their websites with you. You would never need to work a minute to make up for the price of coldfusion. Casey

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- This also assumes that you're the only developer, you're only taking one year into consideration, and you're assuming that you get no other benefits from using coldfusion that you might have to pay extra for with PHP - or spend a LOT more time implementing - over and above the 10% productivity difference. For example, PDF generation, enterprise reporting, verity collections. Rick

Casey, To further back your case, anyone that is sitting here thinking that they *have* to buy CF for their development is incorrect. You can download a copy right now and use the developer edition for free. So along with your great statement about having clients pay for their hosting, there's no reason why anyone should not be able to effectively use CF for their development. For those that need good, inexpensive ColdFusion 8 hosting, HostMySite.com has started offering it at $21.95/month: http://hostmysite.com/hosting/builder/ Rey... Casey Dougall wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I completely disagree with this statement Andy. Part of being a consultant is selling your solution and if a person can't effectively do that, then they shouldn't be in the consulting business at all. What I've seen over the time I've been involved with ColdFusion is less people that are interested or willing to sell a solution as opposed to making their $30-50/hr as a contractor. If thats what person wants to do, then they might be better of choosing a tool like PHP or .Net. But in my experience, selling customers on ColdFusion, even when I've had to explain the ROI, has not been an issue. I really believe people underestimate the intelligence of prospects and thats just not good business. Rey... Andy Matthews wrote: > Rick... > > You make compelling arguments. But IMO, if you have to explain the ROI to > someone, then you've already lost the battle....

I have to agree that I have never had issues selling the benefits of CF and ROI, it's actually an easy sell. I just purely don't understand the price hike, in a market where software is becoming less expensive and also free, a 25% increase is unjustified unless there is some new feature that they have included that requires them to licence in third party products. Why this has added a Nail to the Coffin is because they have hurt the enterprise market, if I want to develop a large enterprise scale application, which requires multiple servers etc, etc. ColdFusion is simply too expensive and I will use something else. Instead of buying Enterprise I will now (have already) buy Standard. PS: If someone would like to explain to me the price difference between download and boxed, i'd love to hear that story also. In Australia here an Enterprise box is only $1,104, it must be really shiny. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com I completely disagree with this statement Andy. Part of being a consultant is selling your solution and if a person can't effectively do that, then they shouldn't be in the consulting business at all. What I've seen over the time I've been involved with ColdFusion is less people that are interested or willing to sell a solution as opposed to making their $30-50/hr as a contractor. If thats what person wants to do, then they might be better of choosing a tool like PHP or .Net. But in my experience, selling customers on ColdFusion, even when I've had to explain the ROI, has not been an issue. I really believe people underestimate the intelligence of prospects and thats just not good business. Rey... Andy Matthews wrote: > Rick... > > You make compelling arguments. But IMO, if you have to explain the ROI to > someone, then you've already lost the battle....

Hi Dale, > I have to agree that I have never had issues selling the benefits of CF and > ROI, it's actually an easy sell. Exactly! :) Rey...

Go write your own integration with Exchange and evaluate those man hours ... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more because there are new features. That makes no sense what so ever. If there were no new features, then you wouldn't need a new version. It's the quantity and quality of new features that makes people decide if they are even going to upgrade. The fact that it's an upgrade means they get your money again, so there is no need to get your money again + a premium for new features. If all the ColdFusion die hard's who go hide in a hole and don't speak up when something like this stupid pricing happens then these problems are never going to get addressed. People are too scared to say what they think and risk tainting their perfect CF image. I note that Ben & Ray have had nothing to say about the increased pricing, in fact they just kinda did a soft release and hope that it would sweep under the carpet, and no one would notice. Very Poor! Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com

Actually, Ben spoke a little about the value add in the latest podcast at coldfusionweekly.com, albeit in an indirect manner. Aside from the fact that CF hasn't had a price increase since CF5, or that this is probably the largest new-feature release in the history of the product, or the fact that no other server gives you this much pertinent development ROI out of the box, there is also the point that the biggest un-marked feature is a major upgrade in the speed and performance of the server. Why is this important? Because it lowers your overhead costs in other areas, like additional equipment and licensing to support it. Adobe has to pay developers, marketing staff, advertising costs, etc. If CF were an open source project it might be different, but I don't think you'd see the advancements to the product like you have throughout CF history. If you care to argue that point then maybe you'd like to ask Mark Drew how much help he gets writing features into CFEclipse, or the guys at the Smith Project about how much help outside developers are giving them? Mark is a wonderful freak of nature, who must code in his sleep to keep up with the demands of this community, and the folks at the Smith project will still be years before they fully catch up to what CF 7 can do, much less 8. I agree with Rey. If you're having that much trouble convincing a potential client of the value of developing on CF then they are probably more trouble than they are worth. Small projects won't warrant Enterprise Edition. Large projects will see the ROI to make the purchase, especially if you show them the facts and they have enough sense to run the numbers. Hosting providers are popping up left and right to accommodate, and Adobe's pricing plan for them, coupled with their licensing structure on VPS's and procs, will make CF an extremely viable option compared to the past. BTW, I've written the Exchange connector code in ASP before. Ben's little 45 line sample app, from his UG demos, would take ASP scripting three times the length of my arm. That's ROI. Please, give it a rest. If you're so upset about it then move on to the "next big thing," and let the rest of us enjoy what the future has to give us. Steve "Cutter" Blades Adobe Certified Professional Advanced Macromedia ColdFusion MX 7 Developer _____________________________ http://blog.cutterscrossing.com Dale Fraser wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

<sarcasm> That's true. Look how many people complain about todays cars costing more then the model-t. </sarcasm> Expecting new features without a price increase is not an intelligent way of doing business. If you don't like the increase (and you NEED enterprise), then either work out a solution so you don't need it or go install something else and learn that. Dale Fraser wrote: > What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more > because there are new features.

Can you say upgrade pricing.... ~Terry What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more because there are new features. That makes no sense what so ever. If there were no new features, then you wouldn't need a new version. It's the quantity and quality of new features that makes people decide if they are even going to upgrade. The fact that it's an upgrade means they get your money again, so there is no need to get your money again + a premium for new features. If all the ColdFusion die hard's who go hide in a hole and don't speak up when something like this stupid pricing happens then these problems are never going to get addressed. People are too scared to say what they think and risk tainting their perfect CF image. I note that Ben & Ray have had nothing to say about the increased pricing, in fact they just kinda did a soft release and hope that it would sweep under the carpet, and no one would notice. Very Poor! Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com

> What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more > because there are new features. I think you're completely missing the point: there are many companies out there that view CFMX 7 as "too cheap" at $3k/CPU. They don't think it is serious software so they won't buy it. The increased price actually helps sell to those enterprise companies. And the (frankly) small price hike won't put other enterprises off. If you think enterprise is too expensive, you simply aren't an enterprise company! Hardly any enterprise software costs less than $6k/CPU. Go look at WebLogic and WebSphere (or almost anything from IBM!). Go look at Oracle. Someone pointed at the DataDirect drivers which cost $4k retail - included in CF Enterprise. > That makes no sense what so ever. It makes perfect sense - if you understand the enterprise market. > People are too scared to say what they think > and risk tainting their perfect CF image. No, this thread has 60+ responses already so folks are certainly coming out and saying what they think - and they're mostly not on your side in this discussion because they understand the market better than you do. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

I know I am going to regret saying this, but what the heck ... Regardless of how anyone feels about the price change, just know that this decision was NOT made in a vacuum. In fact, the team polled lots of ColdFusion customers to ask them their opinion on this. And the general feedback, even from those who would rather we not charge more, was that the price change was fair and not inappropriate. I know this won't change how anyone feels about it, but just know that we do take the time to research this thoroughly - probably more so than many who are making "definitive" statements on the subject. --- Ben > What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more > because there are new features. I think you're completely missing the point: there are many companies out there that view CFMX 7 as "too cheap" at $3k/CPU. They don't think it is serious software so they won't buy it. The increased price actually helps sell to those enterprise companies. And the (frankly) small price hike won't put other enterprises off. If you think enterprise is too expensive, you simply aren't an enterprise company! Hardly any enterprise software costs less than $6k/CPU. Go look at WebLogic and WebSphere (or almost anything from IBM!). Go look at Oracle. Someone pointed at the DataDirect drivers which cost $4k retail - included in CF Enterprise. > That makes no sense what so ever. It makes perfect sense - if you understand the enterprise market. > People are too scared to say what they think > and risk tainting their perfect CF image. No, this thread has 60+ responses already so folks are certainly coming out and saying what they think - and they're mostly not on your side in this discussion because they understand the market better than you do. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

... > I know this won't change how anyone feels about it, but just know that we do > take the time to research this thoroughly - probably more so than many who Hey Ben, I'm sure there were meetings upon meetings- I'm talking more philosophical/future, looking at "now" vs. "last quarter" or whatnot. I think CF will be fine for a bit, but the times, they are a changing. That's it.  I don't care, really, besides a leaning towards the future, or whatnot.  Getting the newbs, keeping pace, all that good stuff. Keeping the language alive. I'm vested, obviously, after the years, but the patterns and whatnot is what I've been digging on- that's applicable in a bunch of places. This thread has gone on so long because the whole price bit has been a "factor" for CF since a long time ago.  If it's not done right it can destroy the language, so no rush, but still... ** I think for the speed increase alone, it's good for the extra Gees, personally.  Bravo on the whole deal, it's an excellent piece of SW, she is.  My compliments to the chefs.

Ben Forta wrote: > I know I am going to regret saying this, but what the heck ... > > Regardless of how anyone feels about the price change, just know that this > decision was NOT made in a vacuum. In fact, the team polled lots of > ColdFusion customers to ask them their opinion on this. And the general > feedback, even from those who would rather we not charge more, was that the > price change was fair and not inappropriate. I am very happy with the new price point of ColdFusion and especially with the fact that European customers are now paying prices that are on par with US prices. Jochem

Dale, Most people know me as being VERY vocal when I don't like something. Quite honestly, I don't see an issue with a price increase in the "Enterprise" edition. Its targeted to a different level of customer who won't balk at that price. Having worked with companies at that level, I know for fact that $7k is peanuts to them. Now, if standard would've had a substantial price increase then I'd be more inclined to gripe about it. So I don't believe anyone is "hiding in a hole". They might just be looking at this from a different perspective than you. Rey... Dale Fraser wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The bottom line is that if the extra $1500 breaks you and stops you from buying CF8 Enterprise, you were not a target customer for CF8 Enterprise. The vast majority of customers buying the Enterprise version will turn around and buy CF8 Enterprise because $1500 is nothing in an IT budget. For people who can't afford $7500, there is the Standard version. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Let me be absolutely clear on something Dale. 1) I have nothing to do with the prices Adobe charge. Last time I checked, I don't work for Adobe. If Adobe wants to hire me, they can give me a call, but until then, I don't see how you can put this on me. What the hell did I do? 2) I've been spending my time blogging about features. I figure my readers care more about that. I haven't been avoiding pricing. I've just been focused on what interests ME and what I assume interests my readers. If you want to know what I think about the prices, then ask. But to act like I'm some kind of conspiracy with Adobe to make people not notice the prices is flat out wrong. 3) I have NEVER refrained from speaking my mind about CF. Now I'll be honest and say I've rarely complained. That isn't to say I haven't. Shoot, I bad mouth CFLOGON all the time, and I freely share WHY it bugs me. I hope folks forgive me for my language above but I'm a bit pissed as to how I'm being dragged into this. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

And I've not weighed in because frankly, there is little for me to add. Like all of you, I have opinions about pricing, but I am not the final decision maker - I do voice my opinions, and sometimes they align with those of the wider CF team and sometimes not, but once a decision is made I have to live with it. If you are expecting me to denounce a product decision in public (and no, I am not saying that I would denounce this one) then think again, that would be more than inappropriate. And to be very fair, I was asked many times about possible pricing increases over the past 1/2 year,  including at many of the usergroups we visited. And my answer every time was that A) we've not raised the price in a while, there has been pressure to do so, and so it was a possibility, B) *if* there would be price increases we would try to limit the users impacted by it, C) if there would be a price increase then it would be an incremental one, and the price would not increase by several times, D) buy subscriptions now and you'll not have to deal with this if the price does in fact increase. And I think that my responses were indeed correct. And finally, we've been debating price increases for several versions already. And with each edition we debated the issue for a long time and decided to postpone any increase. Now, after 5 years or so, we have indeed increased the price of Enterprise only, while simultaneously making Standard a more compelling option for even more users. But, others have explained this already. Beyond this I have nothing else to say on the topic, at this point I am too busy with features and customers. --- Ben Let me be absolutely clear on something Dale. 1) I have nothing to do with the prices Adobe charge. Last time I checked, I don't work for Adobe. If Adobe wants to hire me, they can give me a call, but until then, I don't see how you can put this on me. What the hell did I do? 2) I've been spending my time blogging about features. I figure my readers care more about that. I haven't been avoiding pricing. I've just been focused on what interests ME and what I assume interests my readers. If you want to know what I think about the prices, then ask. But to act like I'm some kind of conspiracy with Adobe to make people not notice the prices is flat out wrong. 3) I have NEVER refrained from speaking my mind about CF. Now I'll be honest and say I've rarely complained. That isn't to say I haven't. Shoot, I bad mouth CFLOGON all the time, and I freely share WHY it bugs me. I hope folks forgive me for my language above but I'm a bit pissed as to how I'm being dragged into this. > What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more > because there are new features. > > That makes no sense what so ever. If there were no new features, then you > wouldn't need a new version. It's the quantity and quality of new features > that makes people decide if they are even going to upgrade. The fact that > it's an upgrade means they get your money again, so there is no need to get ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Ben, Thanks for your response. I understand that it's not your decision and that there are factors that impact pricing. I also understand that not everyone who might have fought for a lower price can always win, it's good that you had an opportunity to voice your opinion. As I said in the original post CF8 is a great product and I have purchased it already. I purchased Standard however when I had budget for Enterprise, the 25% increase done at launch gave me no opportunity to budget or plan for this expenditure. I mainly get upset due to the fact that CF is always being compared to free products, PHP, .NET & Java and I constantly have to justify the price, to me and a lot of others this price increase was just unexpected. I really wonder how many people who were going to purchase Enterprise purchased Standard instead, either due to the price or the fact that standard has more features. Sean, I can't imagine they will sell more Enterprise because if it's more expensive people will think it's a real Enterprise product. You say I don't understand the enterprise market, well you are wrong, I am one of these customers. If you understood enterprise's you would surely know that budgets and plans for expenditure need to be submitted at the start of the financial year. I am now one less enterprise customer, but I guess they can afford to lose 25% of the enterprise customers and still break even. Time will tell if this was a good or bad decision or now, we will never know I guess until version 9 is released and see if anything changes. PS: Everyone will be very interested now in where they can find clear info on how the standard features are throttled, I for one don't want to start debugging code when things go slow to find that the server is doing this. I want to know in advance of what every limit is. Does such a document exist? Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com And I've not weighed in because frankly, there is little for me to add. Like all of you, I have opinions about pricing, but I am not the final decision maker - I do voice my opinions, and sometimes they align with those of the wider CF team and sometimes not, but once a decision is made I have to live with it. If you are expecting me to denounce a product decision in public (and no, I am not saying that I would denounce this one) then think again, that would be more than inappropriate. And to be very fair, I was asked many times about possible pricing increases over the past 1/2 year,  including at many of the usergroups we visited. And my answer every time was that A) we've not raised the price in a while, there has been pressure to do so, and so it was a possibility, B) *if* there would be price increases we would try to limit the users impacted by it, C) if there would be a price increase then it would be an incremental one, and the price would not increase by several times, D) buy subscriptions now and you'll not have to deal with this if the price does in fact increase. And I think that my responses were indeed correct. And finally, we've been debating price increases for several versions already. And with each edition we debated the issue for a long time and decided to postpone any increase. Now, after 5 years or so, we have indeed increased the price of Enterprise only, while simultaneously making Standard a more compelling option for even more users. But, others have explained this already. Beyond this I have nothing else to say on the topic, at this point I am too busy with features and customers. --- Ben Let me be absolutely clear on something Dale. 1) I have nothing to do with the prices Adobe charge. Last time I checked, I don't work for Adobe. If Adobe wants to hire me, they can give me a call, but until then, I don't see how you can put this on me. What the hell did I do? 2) I've been spending my time blogging about features. I figure my readers care more about that. I haven't been avoiding pricing. I've just been focused on what interests ME and what I assume interests my readers. If you want to know what I think about the prices, then ask. But to act like I'm some kind of conspiracy with Adobe to make people not notice the prices is flat out wrong. 3) I have NEVER refrained from speaking my mind about CF. Now I'll be honest and say I've rarely complained. That isn't to say I haven't. Shoot, I bad mouth CFLOGON all the time, and I freely share WHY it bugs me. I hope folks forgive me for my language above but I'm a bit pissed as to how I'm being dragged into this. > What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more > because there are new features. > > That makes no sense what so ever. If there were no new features, then you > wouldn't need a new version. It's the quantity and quality of new features > that makes people decide if they are even going to upgrade. The fact that > it's an upgrade means they get your money again, so there is no need to get ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Thanks for your response. I understand that it's not your decision and that > there are factors that impact pricing. I also understand that not everyone > who might have fought for a lower price can always win, it's good that you > had an opportunity to voice your opinion. Ben did not say that anyone argued for *lower* prices. I expect several people argued for even higher prices than we got. > As I said in the original post CF8 is a great product and I have purchased > it already. I purchased Standard however when I had budget for Enterprise, > the 25% increase done at launch gave me no opportunity to budget or plan for > this expenditure. Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) > I mainly get upset due to the fact that CF is always being compared to free > products, PHP, .NET & Java and I constantly have to justify the price Change the comparison. It should not be about technologies, it should be about solutions. > I can't imagine they will sell more Enterprise because if it's more > expensive people will think it's a real Enterprise product. You say I don't > understand the enterprise market, well you are wrong No, I'm right. You are wrong. If you were truly an enterprise customer - buying enterprise software (as opposed to a customer that happened to buy Enterprise Edition), you would be only too aware that CF is extremely cheap and looks out of place on many infrastructure plans. The higher price will be easier to sell to enterprises. Personally, I think it's still too cheap. I think $9,995 for 2 CPUs would be a better price for enterprise infrastructure budgets. > If you understood enterprise's you would surely know that budgets > and plans for expenditure need to be submitted at the start of the financial Dude, I've been an enterprise systems architect for decades helping large corporates with planning and budgets for software and infrastructure. I understand the enterprise market very well. I moved to America because a company wanted my organization to pick up "small" contracts... ones that involved less than $1m of licenses for their software. I think the smallest software project we took on was $375k. Mostly they were around $750k. At one point we created a *prototype* for a European company where the budget was 750k GBP. For a *prototype*! The second phase of the project was a multi-million pound project (which they took to another company and, after they'd failed - and cost them millions - they brought the project back to us). Half a dozen CF Enterprise licenses would have been lost in the line items in most of those projects. > PS: Everyone will be very interested now in where they can find clear info > on how the standard features are throttled ... Does such a document exist? If you read the product documentation, this is all very clearly explained. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

Sean Your facts need review > Ben did not say that anyone argued for *lower* prices. I expect several people argued for even higher prices than we got. I never said he did, I said everyone who might have fought for a lower price. > Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) Wrong, CF7 came out more than 2 years ago so everyone who bought a subscription with CF7 release wasted their money. > Dude, I've been an enterprise systems architect for decades helping large corporates with planning and budgets for software and Yes I've managed multi million dollar projects, but you seem to think you are the only one to be a real enterprise customer, and you just skipped over the whole budgeting process that I was talking about. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com > Thanks for your response. I understand that it's not your decision and that > there are factors that impact pricing. I also understand that not everyone > who might have fought for a lower price can always win, it's good that you > had an opportunity to voice your opinion. Ben did not say that anyone argued for *lower* prices. I expect several people argued for even higher prices than we got. > As I said in the original post CF8 is a great product and I have purchased > it already. I purchased Standard however when I had budget for Enterprise, > the 25% increase done at launch gave me no opportunity to budget or plan for > this expenditure. Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) > I mainly get upset due to the fact that CF is always being compared to free > products, PHP, .NET & Java and I constantly have to justify the price Change the comparison. It should not be about technologies, it should be about solutions. > I can't imagine they will sell more Enterprise because if it's more > expensive people will think it's a real Enterprise product. You say I don't > understand the enterprise market, well you are wrong No, I'm right. You are wrong. If you were truly an enterprise customer - buying enterprise software (as opposed to a customer that happened to buy Enterprise Edition), you would be only too aware that CF is extremely cheap and looks out of place on many infrastructure plans. The higher price will be easier to sell to enterprises. Personally, I think it's still too cheap. I think $9,995 for 2 CPUs would be a better price for enterprise infrastructure budgets. > If you understood enterprise's you would surely know that budgets > and plans for expenditure need to be submitted at the start of the financial Dude, I've been an enterprise systems architect for decades helping large corporates with planning and budgets for software and infrastructure. I understand the enterprise market very well. I moved to America because a company wanted my organization to pick up "small" contracts... ones that involved less than $1m of licenses for their software. I think the smallest software project we took on was $375k. Mostly they were around $750k. At one point we created a *prototype* for a European company where the budget was 750k GBP. For a *prototype*! The second phase of the project was a multi-million pound project (which they took to another company and, after they'd failed - and cost them millions - they brought the project back to us). Half a dozen CF Enterprise licenses would have been lost in the line items in most of those projects. > PS: Everyone will be very interested now in where they can find clear info > on how the standard features are throttled ... Does such a document exist? If you read the product documentation, this is all very clearly explained. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

... > Change the comparison. It should not be about technologies, it should > be about solutions. This, actually, is one of my points- It seems like it's all about the tech, vs. the solutions. Solutions-wize, is actually where PHP and the other Open Languages are challenging CF.  Because of Open Source, if you ask me, but hey, the fact remains, that PHP, etc. "solutions" are getting pretty freaking slick.  Easy, good UI design, etc..  Talk about Rapid!  Sheesh! Just playing with the (free) PHP plug-ins my host offers blew me away. You could be half-brain dead and whip out a pretty nifty "solution". -This is not how it used to be.- Not to mention, they're not "server/CPU centric" like ColdFusion. (Re: the google method, or whatever- farms or flocks, as the case may be) And CF is more a means, vs. a "solution", I reckon.  Depending. Since it's all solutions enveloped with/in solutions, or whatever. ** I just can't stand this talk of "it's a hard sell to the enterprise cuz it's so inexpensive (not cheap, tho ;)" being justification for a price hike.  The hard work put in, sure- but the "appearance" argument pisses me of a bit. The idea that money doesn't matter to enterprises, is ludicrous. Seems like people think enterprise means unlimited $$?  Or that value is assessed using a single vector?  The "Price" of X?!?! By this argument, no "enterprises" use Linux, Apache, etc.- or some strange logic like that.  Does that sound correct?  ROI is easy, right, since everyone and their grandma is a millionaire?  Oh, what, you mean it's as complicated a topic as you'd like it to be? *sigh* I see. ** Depends on your time frame, I guess. So... calculating value is really that easy for folks, huh?  Man, I'm a freaking mess, I reckon.  I find it sorta hard.  Intangible, even. ** I've never been much of one for licensing, tho.  Support, sure- work, fine- but money for having an idea?  Seems like cheating. I wonder what the world would be like if everything went public domain after 7 years or whatever.  ** Ok, enough crazyness. Peace! __ Sell people (the good way;) (or hardware). PS says the dude making <$25 an hour

I also have to say that Groovy and Grails are awesome as well... We use both here, and I am impressed. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> I also have to say that Groovy and Grails are awesome as well... > > We use both here, and I am impressed. Heh.  Yeah.  I keep saying PHP and whatnot, but those are the ones that are making waves right now, aren't they? :-)

Well, sort of. Enterprises often use SLES, RHEL; versions of Linux that are not free. > > By this argument, no "enterprises" use Linux, Apache, etc.- or some > strange logic like that.  Does that sound correct? -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

Quite different from paying license fees tho, isn't that?  In fact, that's kind of like what I'm talking about. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Quite different from paying license fees tho, isn't that?  In fact, that's > kind of like what I'm talking about. > > > Well, sort of. Enterprises often use SLES, RHEL; versions of Linux > > that are not free. I don't remember pricing up RHEL under maintenance but here's something I did look at: JBoss support / maintenance can very quickly reach $100k / year for even a moderate server farm (for the app server, Hibernate, clustering etc - all of which JBoss prices separately). Comparable with annual support for WebLogic (or WebSphere no doubt - but I only did a direct comparison of JBoss and WebLogic). The difference in costs between WebLogic and JBoss came down the initial license fee (about $400k for the setup I was evaluating). ColdFusion 8 Enterprise would be $120k in the context of that (a 32 CPU farm) which actually makes CF8 "cheap" compared to JBoss (assuming you actually pay the support fees) and very cheap compared to WebLogic. Just a price point for a relatively small "enterprise" project. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

You could throw in $799 per server per year for a SLES standard subscription: http://www.novell.com/products/server/howtobuy.html ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

Bump.  j/k =] ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Yeah, I get the whole 6 of one argument, but I was thinking more along the lines of: you don't /have/ to pay for support.  I don't think jboss or redhat restrict what's available to the general public.  ( I don't know really, it's been a while since I used stuff besides fedora or centOS or whatnot.  SuSE, at least when we were paying for it, was selling support, not the OS itself-  & we payed from the heart ;) I like the idea of four dudes throwing a bunch of cheap hardware together and creating some cool thing- why not make it easy to make things better for everyone?  Give those heads who have only gumption and know-how a freaking chance- a niche, if you will. Of course it's really a dozen of this or a dozen of that in the end- but one's a baker's dozen! =-P __ I don't mean to come across like I know what I'm talking about, there could be huge factors I'm not considering, etc.. Like I've said before- it's fun to watch it all unfold =] PS- you still gotta pay for that hardware somehow, and traffic, so no matter what, "it" costs.  Perhaps in the long view there is not as much difference as one would think.  Eh.**  Back to CF!

Fedora and RHE are 2 different critters.  So if you want RHE...you have to pay for it.  I cannot comment on JBOSS as I an mot familiar with how they charge.  I did look into getting RHE at one point for my dev server since that was the supported version.  You cannot just download a copy of RHE without the support package. Eric Bump.  j/k =] ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- that's > > kind of like what I'm talking about. > > I don't remember pricing up RHEL under maintenance but here's > something I did look at: Yeah, I get the whole 6 of one argument, but I was thinking more along the lines of: you don't /have/ to pay for support.  I don't think jboss or redhat restrict what's available to the general public.  ( I don't know really, it's been a while since I used stuff besides fedora or centOS or whatnot.  SuSE, at least when we were paying for it, was selling support, not the OS itself-  & we payed from the heart ;) I like the idea of four dudes throwing a bunch of cheap hardware together and creating some cool thing- why not make it easy to make things better for everyone?  Give those heads who have only gumption and know-how a freaking chance- a niche, if you will. Of course it's really a dozen of this or a dozen of that in the end- but one's a baker's dozen! =-P __ I don't mean to come across like I know what I'm talking about, there could be huge factors I'm not considering, etc.. Like I've said before- it's fun to watch it all unfold =] PS- you still gotta pay for that hardware somehow, and traffic, so no matter what, "it" costs.  Perhaps in the long view there is not as much difference as one would think.  Eh.**  Back to CF!

> I did look into getting RHE at one point for my dev server since > that was the supported version.  You cannot just download a copy of RHE > without the support package. > Of course, you could download the sources for RHEL and build it yourself, which is what the CentOS and White Box distros do.  The license that you are paying to Redhat is really for access to the RHN and response time on any issues you have.

That's too much work hehehe :-D  Plus time is also money, so even if I go that route, it is not free.   Eric > I did look into getting RHE at one point for my dev server since > that was the supported version.  You cannot just download a copy of RHE > without the support package. > Of course, you could download the sources for RHEL and build it yourself, which is what the CentOS and White Box distros do.  The license that you are paying to Redhat is really for access to the RHN and response time on any issues you have.

How...you are paying license fees for those OS's.  If you want the stable version of Red Hat Linux...you have to buy RHE.  Fedora is the bleeding edge and thus non-stable version that is used as a test platform. Eric Quite different from paying license fees tho, isn't that?  In fact, that's kind of like what I'm talking about. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Use Debian! :) How...you are paying license fees for those OS's.  If you want the stable version of Red Hat Linux...you have to buy RHE.  Fedora is the bleeding edge and thus non-stable version that is used as a test platform. Eric

See below Ben, <snipped> I mainly get upset due to the fact that CF is always being compared to free products, PHP, .NET & Java and I constantly have to justify the price, to me and a lot of others this price increase was just unexpected. I really wonder how many people who were going to purchase Enterprise purchased Standard instead, either due to the price or the fact that standard has more features. **************************************** It gets compared because the talking heads are deceptive when they say that they are free, when in reality they are not.  Allaire/Macromedia/Adobe also have some guilt in this in that none of them ever countered this.  As I said in a previous posting, Ben wrote an article about this for CFDJ, but that was the only mention of this disparity in the truth. Allaire/Macromedia/Adobe should be using this information to contradict this misinformation campaign and they have all failed miserably in this and other marketing aspects.  Maybe a good suggestion for the adobe folks would be to put up a product comparison page that shows the approximate costs (both development and purchase) costs to get the other languages up to par with CF out of the box.  Someone needs to give the Adobe marketing team a good swift kick in the behind and get them on the ball. ****************************************** Sean, I can't imagine they will sell more Enterprise because if it's more expensive people will think it's a real Enterprise product. You say I don't understand the enterprise market, well you are wrong, I am one of these customers. If you understood enterprise's you would surely know that budgets and plans for expenditure need to be submitted at the start of the financial year. I am now one less enterprise customer, but I guess they can afford to lose 25% of the enterprise customers and still break even. *************************** You would be surprised on just how stupid executives can be in big companies.  I have heard this more than I care to remember.  It does sound really asinine, because, well...it is very asinine, but that is how they think.  They are used to enterprise level products that cost in the 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars (I remember doing some research on this an there was a java based product (this was about 10 years ago) that cost 100k...so I am not exaggerating.  Look at Oracle web services...that costs over 10k and all that offers is a Java development platform that works with the database.) This is kind of a self-image issue as well.  If they paid this much and can justify what they paid for these other products, how can CF be a worthy product if it is so cheap compared to these other products? If there is a product that is a qualified and useful enterprise level web development solution that is that cheap, then they were pretty stupid to spend 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars on the other stuff.   Most also have discretionary spending allowed for in the budget or are allowed some leeway for instances like that.  I am sure that if you went to your bosses and say, hey they increased the price by 750(?) a CPU...we need x amount of dollars added to our budget to cover this unexpected increase...I am sure they would ok it.  All the in you had was that there probably wouldn't be an increase, so you could not have guessed that there would be.  Unless you work for a really small company (and I mean really small...and if it is...then as several had stated before...you probably don't need enterprise anyway), if your company is that inflexible that they cannot absorb a couple of thousand dollars in this, then they might just have grater issues that should concern you more.   ******* <snipped> PS: Everyone will be very interested now in where they can find clear info on how the standard features are throttled, I for one don't want to start debugging code when things go slow to find that the server is doing this. I want to know in advance of what every limit is. Does such a document exist? Regards Dale Fraser ***************************** I would agree..that would be useful info...Oh Adobe.... Eric

... > I hope folks forgive me for my language above but I'm a bit pissed as > to how I'm being dragged into this. Dudes, if this is Ray pissed, I'm like, "what's enraged look like?" :-)  You're a good man, Ray.  Thanks for your contributions, y wotnot.

Dale, I did a quick search for software pricing to put the CF8 pricing in some perspective.. Windows 2003 Enterprise    3,443 Windows 2003 Standard    958 Oracle 10g Enterprise    40,000 Oracle 10g Standard    4,995 Sql Server Enterprise    13,699 Sql Server Standard    1,754 JBoss Enterprise      4,500 Now as far as software goes, CF8 is reasonably priced. If you look at just J2ee servers or Web app servers, yea CF8 Ent is very high. Yes, this will hurt their sales. It's simply a point for you to determine if the features are worth it for you or not. I'm sure BlueDragon and the others will incorporate a lot of those same features down the road just like Adobe adopted cfthread from BlueDragon. So no biggie, wait 6 months.. Another point for the Adobe people, I remember when the standard/enterprise started and there was a lot complaining back then. With the price gap getting wider, maybe it's time for a third version, let's call it a "Business" version. That provides some of the least costly new features and provides a bridge (or stepping stone) from standard to enterprise. I think that would solve a lot of issues with this and take almost nothing for Adobe to do. John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting

> With the price gap > getting wider, maybe it's time for a third version, let's call it a > "Business" version. That provides some of the least costly new features and > provides a bridge (or stepping stone) from standard to enterprise. I think > that would solve a lot of issues with this and take almost nothing for Adobe > to do. > It seems like they have actually done this somewhat, by allowing more of the "Enterprise" features to be enabled in Standard, just throttled to one request at a time.  And that without a price increase to Standard.

... > JBoss Enterprise                        4,500 Hey, here's an apple! > Another point for the Adobe people, I remember when the standard/enterprise > started and there was a lot complaining back then. With the price gap > getting wider, maybe it's time for a third version, let's call it a > "Business" version. That provides some of the least costly new features and > provides a bridge (or stepping stone) from standard to enterprise. I think > that would solve a lot of issues with this and take almost nothing for Adobe > to do. Excellent post, and idea!  I love the places that are like, "well, what do you do? How much money do you make? Etc., etc." and then have the price-swaying power to work with you.  Compromise, in some cases, and just plain "helping a brother out", in others. Probably hell on the accountants, and whatnot, and you got X complaining that Y got Z for AA, or whatever.  Still, I've seen it work (and IIRC, with CF, back in the day).  Eh. Great post tho, thanks.

Another thing to keep in mind, is, Open Source. It's starting to Crush, you know?  Still hasn't flipped the script, but we're getting close.  Seriously close. Guess it's sorta like the tulip thing, or whatever-  The stock market, etc.- You ride as long as you can, and hope you don't stay too long (wipeout). I don't mind if Adobe wants to ride the wave for a bit more- heck, seems logical- but mark my words, it will be a different "model" in not-too-long. Sorta.  The more things change... Ha! Mark my words... I love that.  Mark 'em! =P PS just delete this if it's too off topic :)

Agreed... And from that I will add that I am about to release in the next few weeks a CFReport clone, based of a java open source project the technology I chose actually rocks, and compared to Crystal Reports it rocks and the designer is by far the best I have seen even better than JasperReports and that is saying something. I not only wrote this in JSTL, and as a servlet, but it took me very little time that we are going to use across all our projects plus more. As far as PDF, and flex goes there are plenty of open source alternatives that are going to kill Coldfusion. Adobe needs to do something and do it fast, otherwise there will be very little usage as far as Coldfusion goes in the market place. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

If this thread goes on any longer I am going to double the price of CFEclipse so it fits into the Enterprise Market. We are in no way an "enterprise" company, but the price increase is basically 2 days of a developer. With the Ajax features, we have already made that money back. MD

I personally would love to see a 'Coldfusion Express' edition come out again, like back in the Allaire days. Access to CFQuery, output, loops, <cfif and logic, cffile, etc.  Basically, nothing that cost Adobe any licensing costs to integrate (maybe sans built-in DB support, just let users add JDBC / ODBC drivers).  I think if they were to compete with .NET on a free level, we would have a ton more developers learning the language, and a lot less complaining about price. Chris Peterson Gainey IT Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer -----Original Message----- > Another point for the Adobe people, I remember when the > standard/enterprise started and there was a lot complaining back then. > With the price gap getting wider, maybe it's time for a third version, > let's call it a "Business" version. That provides some of the least > costly new features and provides a bridge (or stepping stone) from > standard to enterprise. I think that would solve a lot of issues with > this and take almost nothing for Adobe to do.

We can also hearken back to the old article Ben Forta wrote in regards to ASP being free (this can relate to .NET and PHP).  Keep in mind, this article is several years old (I believe he wrote it when CF5 was the current version).  Ben estimated, that through either cost of development time or cost of purchasing modules to "upgrade" ASP's functionality, to get ASP up to the same functional level as CF is right out of the box, it would cost over $36,000.  I wonder what that cost breakdown would be today between CF8 features and J2EE servers without CF, .NET, and PHP?  While the initial cost may be cheaper or free, the actual cost is more than likely going to be a lot greater (I would include the cost of training as well and the time costs required for gaining proficiency in the respective languages).  I bet the results would show that .Net and PHP are not so cost effective. Eric .... > JBoss Enterprise                        4,500 Hey, here's an apple! > Another point for the Adobe people, I remember when the standard/enterprise > started and there was a lot complaining back then. With the price gap > getting wider, maybe it's time for a third version, let's call it a > "Business" version. That provides some of the least costly new features and > provides a bridge (or stepping stone) from standard to enterprise. I think > that would solve a lot of issues with this and take almost nothing for Adobe > to do. Excellent post, and idea!  I love the places that are like, "well, what do you do? How much money do you make? Etc., etc." and then have the price-swaying power to work with you.  Compromise, in some cases, and just plain "helping a brother out", in others. Probably hell on the accountants, and whatnot, and you got X complaining that Y got Z for AA, or whatever.  Still, I've seen it work (and IIRC, with CF, back in the day).  Eh. Great post tho, thanks.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I'm not sure if this pricing is an accurate representation.  Sure SQL server standard is around $1800 with 5 CALs, but if you want to use it for a web app, you will need a per processor license.  Let's say you have a standard dual core 2 duo box.  That's 4 virtual processors.  If I'm reading the licensing terms correctly, you would need 4 processor licenses (assuming you want to utilize all 4 processors).   This comes out to $5999 per processor x 4 processors, $23996 for the standard version, $24,999 per processor x 4 processors, $95984 for the enterprise version.  Of course if you're buying the enterprise version, you're probably doing it for failover or some sort of clustering, in which case you will likely have 2 servers, so it will be close to $200k for the enterprise version.   Of course there's the express version, which does most of what you would need as long as you don't need more then 1 cpu, 1GB of ram and 4GB of db size.   I think MS did a good move by releasing the express version.  This might hurt sales, as a lot of people would be happy with just the express version, but once people start outgrowing it, they will have no choice but to plunk down $6k per CPU for the standard edition.   Mind you that CF only charges per physical processor and the enterprise license covers 2 physical CPUs (last time I checked).  This means you can have 2 quad-core or higher CPUs and you're good as far as CF is concenrned. You can also have unlimited virtual machines on the 2 physical CPUs, and run a copy of standard edition in each of them, and you're still good as far as licensing is concerned.   Russ

We just purchased SQL Server licenses and it's only the actual processor that counts.  You could have a quad core and it would only be one license. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I'm not sure if this pricing is an accurate representation.  Sure SQL server standard is around $1800 with 5 CALs, but if you want to use it for a web app, you will need a per processor license.  Let's say you have a standard dual core 2 duo box.  That's 4 virtual processors.  If I'm reading the licensing terms correctly, you would need 4 processor licenses (assuming you want to utilize all 4 processors).   This comes out to $5999 per processor x 4 processors, $23996 for the standard version, $24,999 per processor x 4 processors, $95984 for the enterprise version.  Of course if you're buying the enterprise version, you're probably doing it for failover or some sort of clustering, in which case you will likely have 2 servers, so it will be close to $200k for the enterprise version.   Of course there's the express version, which does most of what you would need as long as you don't need more then 1 cpu, 1GB of ram and 4GB of db size.   I think MS did a good move by releasing the express version.  This might hurt sales, as a lot of people would be happy with just the express version, but once people start outgrowing it, they will have no choice but to plunk down $6k per CPU for the standard edition.   Mind you that CF only charges per physical processor and the enterprise license covers 2 physical CPUs (last time I checked).  This means you can have 2 quad-core or higher CPUs and you're good as far as CF is concenrned. You can also have unlimited virtual machines on the 2 physical CPUs, and run a copy of standard edition in each of them, and you're still good as far as licensing is concerned.   Russ

One of the points here was that other software has more of a "price spread" than Adobe CF currently. Don't get too focused in on the numbers. The other point was that enterprise level software is expensive. Surprise! Sure there's J2EE stuff that as expensive if not more, I stand corrected there. But Microsoft, Oracle (to some point) and others have layers of product versions to cover the purchasing power our their customers. To use a car analogy. Not everyone can afford an Aston-Martin DB5 but they don't want a used 70's VW bug either. There's a range that all the car companies cover with slightly different lines. The same is true for software. It's actually good, it means there's a big enough market for CF to have a real price spread of more than 2 versions. If Adobe ran a simple pricing analysis, I bet with a new 'business version' they would end up making more money than having just Standard/Enterprise versions. John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting We just purchased SQL Server licenses and it's only the actual processor that counts.  You could have a quad core and it would only be one license. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I'm not sure if this pricing is an accurate representation.  Sure SQL server standard is around $1800 with 5 CALs, but if you want to use it for a web app, you will need a per processor license.  Let's say you have a standard dual core 2 duo box.  That's 4 virtual processors.  If I'm reading the licensing terms correctly, you would need 4 processor licenses (assuming you want to utilize all 4 processors).   This comes out to $5999 per processor x 4 processors, $23996 for the standard version, $24,999 per processor x 4 processors, $95984 for the enterprise version.  Of course if you're buying the enterprise version, you're probably doing it for failover or some sort of clustering, in which case you will likely have 2 servers, so it will be close to $200k for the enterprise version.   Of course there's the express version, which does most of what you would need as long as you don't need more then 1 cpu, 1GB of ram and 4GB of db size.   I think MS did a good move by releasing the express version.  This might hurt sales, as a lot of people would be happy with just the express version, but once people start outgrowing it, they will have no choice but to plunk down $6k per CPU for the standard edition.   Mind you that CF only charges per physical processor and the enterprise license covers 2 physical CPUs (last time I checked).  This means you can have 2 quad-core or higher CPUs and you're good as far as CF is concenrned. You can also have unlimited virtual machines on the 2 physical CPUs, and run a copy of standard edition in each of them, and you're still good as far as licensing is concerned.   Russ

Big shocker...a price increase.  Get over it dude.  Every company has cost increases.  Those cost increases are usually translated into price increases.  Welcome to reality Dale.  I don't know which market you were refereeing to before where software is getting cheaper or free...maybe in the hobby market or the real small business market.  Everywhere else, enterprise level software is more expensive...with CF being among the least expensive of the lot. Eric What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay more because there are new features. That makes no sense what so ever. If there were no new features, then you wouldn't need a new version. It's the quantity and quality of new features that makes people decide if they are even going to upgrade. The fact that it's an upgrade means they get your money again, so there is no need to get your money again + a premium for new features. If all the ColdFusion die hard's who go hide in a hole and don't speak up when something like this stupid pricing happens then these problems are never going to get addressed. People are too scared to say what they think and risk tainting their perfect CF image. I note that Ben & Ray have had nothing to say about the increased pricing, in fact they just kinda did a soft release and hope that it would sweep under the carpet, and no one would notice. Very Poor! Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com

Which is why we are a java shop now, enterprise applications are cheaper overall to integrate into open source solutions, and then when you have a $7.5k license to an application you are developing and use only about 2% of the features to distribute your application costs more with Coldfusion 8. But, on the other side of the coin as Java developers we have a better way of dealing with this problem. Since moving to Java a few months ago I have emulated enough of Coldfusion into JSTL to do what we need, the time invested is minimal when you think about the overall use that these JSTL's are going to beneficial to us. And we can now turn a $2k investment in time, into about $100 per application we sell. This is why the price of Coldfusion in an Enterprise environment will never be taken seriously by the people who make the decisions. And what would have been a better move, in my opinion is to open source the engine and modulate those that need to retain IP or licensing costs, Adobe would have found that with this sort of business approach Adobe would actually make more money with Coldfusion than they do now as well as capturing more market share in the enterprise market. And you wonder why so many enterprise developers look towards open source software, and support these business models more than ever. The overall concept of one application that does everything is very appealing, however the cost is not so appealing. Andrew Scott Senior Coldfusion Developer Aegeon Pty. Ltd. www.aegeon.com.au Phone: +613  8676 4223 Mobile: 0404 998 273 Rick... You make compelling arguments. But IMO, if you have to explain the ROI to someone, then you've already lost the battle. There might be a few people that would be convinced by your (compelling) arguments. But most people are going to see that price tag and not even BOTHER reading the rest of the stuff about it. They'll simply think "CF is too much for my budget" and go install PHP or something. andy

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Excellent post! I was going to say the same thing. But, another thing people don't seem to to consider is how much did it cost Adobe to develop CF 8? How much money did they spend on research? On programmers writing code? On testing? On marketing? I think it is perfectly reasonable what they are asking for it. Just as you expect to develop ColdFusion applications and make a nice living, so does Adobe their developers! CoolJJ Adobe has to pay its developers too.

Poor Adobe. No matter what they do someone will be the "hater". Like Sean mentioned previously with the feature spread this time (versus 7) there should be less "But i don't want to buy Enterprise for Feature X, why didn't they put it in standard". I'm sure there will be a large group who will bring up the whole lack of server monitoring and multiple logins but come on, for a standard installation do you really need that? My guess is that you probably don't, and if you can make an argument for it then I'm sure you can convince the powers that be to upgrade. i know i will. jonese ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> I'm sure there will be a large group who will bring up > the whole lack of server monitoring and multiple logins > but come on, for a standard installation do you really > need that? Personally, my belief is that server monitoring is a must no matter what edition you run, or how many sites you're running.  I can't count how many times FusionReactor has helped diagnose problems that would have taken far longer to fix without it.  It also helps us see where problems are before they get big and nasty and bring the whole server down.  I would have liked to see integrated monitoring in the standard edition, yes, but as long as we have 3rd-party tools available for standard I can live with that. I will say, though, that every version of ColdFusion that has come out has been more and more stable, so the need for these tools has decreased.  They are still very handy when you do need them however. -Justin

> Personally, my belief is that server monitoring is a must no matter what > edition you run, or how many sites you're running.  I can't count how > many times FusionReactor has helped diagnose problems that would have > taken far longer to fix without it. So buy Standard Edition and use FusionReactor. I don't see what your problem is there? I don't see how you can say server monitoring is a "must" (for Standard Edition) when it's a brand new feature that's never been in the product before. You've already bought FusionReactor so you have a solution, yes? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand your argument against Adobe's pricing/editioning here. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

> So buy Standard Edition and use FusionReactor. I > don't see what your problem is there? I don't have a problem.  I believe what I said (which you didn't quote) was that while I wish it had been included, I was fine with the fact that it wasn't as long as 3rd party tools are available to do the job. > I don't see how you can say server monitoring is > a "must" (for Standard Edition) when it's a brand > new feature that's never been in the product before. I didn't say it was a must to be included in Standard, I was making a blanket statement for development in general.  I'm not trying to argue against their pricing/editioning, just making a point that monitoring is useful (needed in my opinion) no matter what edition you happen to be running.  Someone implied that if you're running standard you don't need monitoring anyway, and that is the point I was disagreeing with. -Justin Scott

One more thing about the Server Monitor. It isn't just for use on live sites. You can very easily use it on your dev server to identify problems/bottlenecks in your code. I know I've told this story before - but I still remember using the SM for a grand total of 5 minutes and finding a big problem with BlogCFC. And this was completely OFF production. Scott Pinkston had a good blog article on load testing under OS X. This combined with SM running locally is a great combination. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

"One more thing about the Server Monitor. It isn't just for use on live sites. You can very easily use it on your dev server to identify problems/bottlenecks in your code." That's an excellent and potentially overlooked (by many) point!  SM is enabled, if I understand correctly, in developer mode. The monitor should often be used at this stage of development on NOT in production. If you need it in production FusionReactor or SeeFusion is a great fit if you are not running Enterprise. If thats even too expensive an alternative to that is using some of the built in hooks in Java 5 and doing core dumps and what not, which generally you can find free tools to analyze. Someone had a fairly good presentation 2 years ago at cfUnited about using some of these free tools, I think he published a low cost PDF too. Adam Haskell ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I wasn't the presenter at that CFUnited, but here's my CFDJ article talking about JVM tuning which uses several of the free tools from Sun which I also presented at the CFUnited Express in Atlanta this past spring. http://labs.fusionlink.com/katapult/index.cfm?page=articles/jvmtuning John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting "which generally you can find free tools to analyze. Someone had a fairly good presentation 2 years ago at cfUnited about using some of these free tools, I think he published a low cost PDF too. Adam Haskell"

> Personally, my belief is that server monitoring is a must no matter what > edition you run, or how many sites you're running.  I can't count how The nice thing about the 1.5 and above JRE, is that you can slap in some pretty nice monitoring tools yourself.  One of the reasons I was liking jboss for cf7, actually.  Nifty stuff, man, and all "free". Actually, I've got a dedicated jasperserver, for reports and stuff, and have made Apache do a lot of the work in my last go-round...  I wonder if we even need Enterprise.  Hmmm? Heh.  We'll get it anyways, thank the big guy in the sky.  The pay may kinda suck, but the toys are nice, at least.  *sigh* Well, it's interesting to see how it all goes down. Congratulations to the CF team on getting it out the door.  WOOHOO! Lovely feeling, that. __ I need some popcorn.  Popped at the rate of one kernel per week or so.

Also, one thing that hasn't gotten much press is the FIPS 140 compliant encryption. To anyone that does work with the government this is HUGE. And it is very expensive to add/implement. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

>Dale, >I'd suggest posting the content of your blog here rather than just the url. >As for your post on CF 8 being a dead product because of the price >increase, note that the increase if for Enterprise. How many people >here (other than me) actually use or need enterprise. > We use it at here at ATCC. But given this price increase we'll probably be moving over to Blue Dragon.

Larry Why move at all? I mean, the reason you would upgrade is to get features you dont currently have. Saying you will move to another engine which .. err.. last time I looked, didnt have those features, well, go for it! Some of these arguments are really dumb. Dont upgrade if you cant afford it. There will be plenty of hosts out there providing CF8 hosting very shortly, use those if you need to or make it part of your fee for a project. > We use it at here at ATCC. But given this price increase we'll probably be moving over to Blue Dragon. These discussions simply remind me of the "user blackmail" that we get with CFEclipse: "If you dont add this feature, we are moving to homesite!" MD

>> We use it at here at ATCC. But given this price increase we'll probably be moving over to Blue Dragon. >These discussions simply remind me of the "user blackmail" that we get with CFEclipse: "If you dont add this feature, we are moving to homesite!" I like it when irrational people move away from CF.  It makes the rest of us more-valuable. M!ke

> >> We use it at here at ATCC. But given this price increase we'll > probably be moving over to Blue Dragon. Now *THAT* is perfectly reasonable. As long as you keep in mind that you're giving up a lot of features that Adobe Coldfusion offers that Bluedragon does not currently offer, like flash remoting, event gateways, cfreport, flash forms, cfexchange, cfpresentation, Rick

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- We don't use flash remoting, cfreport, flash forms, cfexchange or cfpresentation. The gateways may be a problem (given a couple of projects involving real-time data collection from a couple of DNA/PCR analysis robots) but a possible work around may be using JMS. For most of what CF8 offers, Blue Dragon offers the same, and where it doesn't, there are open source java projects that we can integrate with our apps if we need that functionality. Essentially it was not a decision I was involved in (being just a peon when it comes to the bean counting stuff), but I can see the rationale used by the PHB's. The decision was about making a leap from cfmx 6.1 to either BD7 or cfmx8. The costs for upgrading from our current setup to BlueDragon7 plus a 2 year subscription was less than half the cost to upgrade 10+ servers to CFMX8 with no subscriptions at all. Moreover in terms of compatibility, I've had to change nothing so far to accommodate the switch, and deploying to JBoss is much easier than jrun.

While I started this thread. I would not recommend anyone move to Blue Dragon to save money. There is not that much price difference at the enterprise level, you don't have the Adobe brand and support behind you and most importantly you don't have all the features. We use Cfreport, flash remoting, cfexchange and will use the new image, zip and lots of the ajax stuff which BD doesn't have. I actually think cfreport is one of the great unsung features of CF and with CFPRINT it gets a bit better. Imagine E-Commmerce online store, where whenever an order is placed you get an invoice or dispatch document automatically spit out on someone's printer, how cool is that. I'm not even sure how BD have a market, there is probably merit to offering a free version for non commercial use and hooking you in, this is really not much difference than developer edition (without the water marks). But it's a different mindset perhaps. For me to consider BD it would seriously need to be half the price or less. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- We don't use flash remoting, cfreport, flash forms, cfexchange or cfpresentation. The gateways may be a problem (given a couple of projects involving real-time data collection from a couple of DNA/PCR analysis robots) but a possible work around may be using JMS. For most of what CF8 offers, Blue Dragon offers the same, and where it doesn't, there are open source java projects that we can integrate with our apps if we need that functionality. Essentially it was not a decision I was involved in (being just a peon when it comes to the bean counting stuff), but I can see the rationale used by the PHB's. The decision was about making a leap from cfmx 6.1 to either BD7 or cfmx8. The costs for upgrading from our current setup to BlueDragon7 plus a 2 year subscription was less than half the cost to upgrade 10+ servers to CFMX8 with no subscriptions at all. Moreover in terms of compatibility, I've had to change nothing so far to accommodate the switch, and deploying to JBoss is much easier than jrun.

I was kind of hoping this thread would died. But oh well... I'm sure the NewAtlanta guys will have a better response, but in the meantime.. The features you mention in view of BD... Cfreport - not very good in CF7 (I'm surprise your currently using it). CF8 is better. Sql Server 2005 also has a reporting feature. And of course there's crystal reports but a lot of people seem to love or hate that one. flash remoting - just use WebORB if you have BD Cfexchange - you have .NET in the background, which has more access to AD and   Exchange right out of the box than the CF8 tags John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting While I started this thread. I would not recommend anyone move to Blue Dragon to save money. There is not that much price difference at the enterprise level, you don't have the Adobe brand and support behind you and most importantly you don't have all the features. We use Cfreport, flash remoting, cfexchange and will use the new image, zip and lots of the ajax stuff which BD doesn't have. I actually think cfreport is one of the great unsung features of CF and with CFPRINT it gets a bit better. Imagine E-Commmerce online store, where whenever an order is placed you get an invoice or dispatch document automatically spit out on someone's printer, how cool is that. I'm not even sure how BD have a market, there is probably merit to offering a free version for non commercial use and hooking you in, this is really not much difference than developer edition (without the water marks). But it's a different mindset perhaps. For me to consider BD it would seriously need to be half the price or less. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- We don't use flash remoting, cfreport, flash forms, cfexchange or cfpresentation. The gateways may be a problem (given a couple of projects involving real-time data collection from a couple of DNA/PCR analysis robots) but a possible work around may be using JMS. For most of what CF8 offers, Blue Dragon offers the same, and where it doesn't, there are open source java projects that we can integrate with our apps if we need that functionality. Essentially it was not a decision I was involved in (being just a peon when it comes to the bean counting stuff), but I can see the rationale used by the PHB's. The decision was about making a leap from cfmx 6.1 to either BD7 or cfmx8. The costs for upgrading from our current setup to BlueDragon7 plus a 2 year subscription was less than half the cost to upgrade 10+ servers to CFMX8 with no subscriptions at all. Moreover in terms of compatibility, I've had to change nothing so far to accommodate the switch, and deploying to JBoss is much easier than jrun.

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- you know the insults are not really necessary.

> Larry > > Why move at all? I mean, the reason you would upgrade is to get > features you dont currently have. Saying you will move to another > engine which .. err.. last time I looked, didnt have those features, > well, go for it! Here's a possible reason: suppose he needs to deploy on JBoss and JDK 1.6? If he's currently running CFMX7, that configuration isn't supported. This leaves him two options: BD 7.0 or CF8. If price is important to him and he doesn't need the new CF8 features that BD 7.0 doesn't support, then BD 7.0 is a valid choice. Or, here's another possibility: what if what he really needs is not just Java-to-.NET bridging (as provided in CF8), but full integration with ASP.NET such as the ability to do session sharing? In this case, BlueDragon.NET 7.0 is the only choice. There are many "new" features in CF8 that are already supported by BD 7.0 (or earlier releases). None of these features are in CFMX7, but can be found in both BD 7.0 and CF8: - .NET integration - image processing (CFIMAGE) - query caching with CFQUERYPARAM - CFC serialization (J2EE Session scope clustering) - duplicate() for CFCs - CFC interfaces - multi-threaded programming (CFTHREAD) - per-application mappings - CFZIP/CFZIPPARAM - onMissingTemplate event handler for Application.cfc - Windows Vista / IIS7 support - Mac OS X Intel support - JBoss support - JDK 1.5 and 1.6 support Yes, there are features in CF8 that aren't in BD 7.0; there are also features in BD 7.0 that aren't in CF8. The relevant questions are: which features do you want, and how much do you want to pay? My point is: it's not at all irrational or unreasonable for ATCC or others to choose BD 7.0 over CF8, if BD 7.0 provides a better combination of features and price to meet their needs.

Nope...just good competition that will just improve CF in the long run. Eric > Larry > > Why move at all? I mean, the reason you would upgrade is to get > features you dont currently have. Saying you will move to another > engine which .. err.. last time I looked, didnt have those features, > well, go for it! Here's a possible reason: suppose he needs to deploy on JBoss and JDK 1.6? If he's currently running CFMX7, that configuration isn't supported. This leaves him two options: BD 7.0 or CF8. If price is important to him and he doesn't need the new CF8 features that BD 7.0 doesn't support, then BD 7.0 is a valid choice. Or, here's another possibility: what if what he really needs is not just Java-to-.NET bridging (as provided in CF8), but full integration with ASP.NET such as the ability to do session sharing? In this case, BlueDragon.NET 7.0 is the only choice. There are many "new" features in CF8 that are already supported by BD 7.0 (or earlier releases). None of these features are in CFMX7, but can be found in both BD 7.0 and CF8: - .NET integration - image processing (CFIMAGE) - query caching with CFQUERYPARAM - CFC serialization (J2EE Session scope clustering) - duplicate() for CFCs - CFC interfaces - multi-threaded programming (CFTHREAD) - per-application mappings - CFZIP/CFZIPPARAM - onMissingTemplate event handler for Application.cfc - Windows Vista / IIS7 support - Mac OS X Intel support - JBoss support - JDK 1.5 and 1.6 support Yes, there are features in CF8 that aren't in BD 7.0; there are also features in BD 7.0 that aren't in CF8. The relevant questions are: which features do you want, and how much do you want to pay? My point is: it's not at all irrational or unreasonable for ATCC or others to choose BD 7.0 over CF8, if BD 7.0 provides a better combination of features and price to meet their needs.

BlueDragon have come out with a price comparison http://blog.newatlanta.com/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=AE646136-1572-8D1B-6BB3123E7B8B1DE2 ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> We use it at here at ATCC. But given this price increase we'll probably be moving over to Blue Dragon. Which would leave you without many of the real enterprise features: MS Exchange Integration, SMS/IM/JMS event gateways, high-performance report generation, high-performance PDF processing and high-performance email service, integrated server monitoring and self-healing, multi-user security for administrator and RDS. I'd be curious to know what Enterprise Edition features you currently use? Just the multi-server install setup perhaps? -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

the URL still has a typo ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

This url? http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/ >the URL still has a typo

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- So? The point of ColdFusion, from Adobe's perspective, is to make money, not to be universally adopted. CF will be too much for some peoples' budgets. C'est la vie. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Or too little. I still suffer from the "it's not expensive enough to be a REAL enterprise app" syndrome.  The belief is that WebSphere (depending on load out at upwards of 10 times CF enterprises cost) is a "better" because it's more expensive. CF 8 (either standard or enterprise) is, unfortunately too expensive for me personally - but the price is far from unreasonable when you look at the universe of options. Jim Davis

... > CF 8 (either standard or enterprise) is, unfortunately too expensive for me > personally - but the price is far from unreasonable when you look at the > universe of options. Ha!  If you have a "personal" enterprise app, guess you're set. Get coding you monkeys!  Make that 7.5 Gs look cheap. Heh- with railo, and smith, and BD and whatnot- there are options. For a certain type of app...  otherwise, lookout RAD (ruby, etc.). PS- I like cheese and crackers.  If something isn't thread safe, it should go in the request scope? __ [pop]

That sure sounds cool. What is it? ~Brad Also, one thing that hasn't gotten much press is the FIPS 140 compliant encryption. To anyone that does work with the government this is HUGE. And it is very expensive to add/implement.

> That sure sounds cool. > What is it? www.justfuckinggoogleit.com http://www.google.com/search?q=fips+140

>> That sure sounds cool. >> What is it? > >www.justfuckinggoogleit.com LMAO!!!

That made my day.  LOL Thanks Bill >> That sure sounds cool. >> What is it? > >www.justfuckinggoogleit.com LMAO!!!

> Now why does CF standard not just go ahead and do this for > you. Well franky I don't know, but it really doesn't matter > if you have the drivers anyway. Adobe can't just bundle whatever they like. They bundle DataDirect drivers, and pay for the privilege. Presumably, that's one reason why Enterprise costs more than Standard - more DataDirect drivers are included. > So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in > CF. For example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I > need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to > do supported Oracle connectivity. Finding out that you can use Oracle's own JDBC drivers shouldn't take more than a few seconds: http://www.google.com/search?q=cfmx+standard+oracle+drivers > We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management > they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. > We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades > and we'll get new features as they come out. What makes you so sure that all new versions of the .NET Framework will run on your existing Windows servers? They might, they might not. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

You can use the Oracle j2ee drivers (that comes with Oracle) to work with CF standard. Just a little more work on your end, but it works fine. This is for Oracle 10g, it may be slightly different for other versions.. -Find the ojdbc14.jar driver on your oracle installation -Put that jar into your WEB-INF\lib -In coldfusion, create a new datasource and choose "other" as the driver   -JDBC URL would be jdbc:oracle:thin:@ip:port:database   -Driver Class oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver Now why does CF standard not just go ahead and do this for you. Well franky I don't know, but it really doesn't matter if you have the drivers anyway. It does confuse the hack out of people, which is bad. Wanted to make sure you knew this before you decided to jump ship :) John mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 http://www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in CF. For example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. You know, I don't disagree with them. I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. Adobe thanks for the memories, a user/developer since version 4.5. - Charles On 7/30/07 5:27 AM, "Adam Haskell" <a.haskell@gmail.com> wrote: I want to echo what Sean said...I looked at CF8 and thought, "wow finally a product that I would really label Enterprise." Not to say CF7 wasn't Enterprise, it had some great features and was a great release, but I think the monitoring and some of the Administration changes helped make it really enterprise friendly. Thats not mentioning the performance enhancements, exchange integration (which currently means nothing to Lotus Shops bleh), and whole suite of ajax tools that really make CF shine as a UI web layer for large Java apps. You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to you unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are throttled but they are available and until you have 100+ (dare I say probably more) concurrent users using the exact same functionality Enterprise means very little. Its like a computer, my Mom doesn't need a dual core 64bit AMD with 2gig of ram and 256mb dedicate graphics card running iSCSI to send me pictures and read email (unless she is running Vista then she might ;) ). Gone are the days where you have to have enterprise to play with those nifty event gateways. If enterprise looks to expensive to you then you probably don't need it, or you need to look at some other Enterprise software costs and revisit in 15 minutes. Hell I say that single move by Adobe to offer a more complete Standard Edition will open more doors for ColdFusion than any single feature. I say Bravo! Adam Haskell ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Thanks, I look at it from a support contract side as well, I'm not sure but I would have to go back and check to make sure the Oracle JDBC driver is a "Adobe" supported model in the Standard edition when  buying the support agreement. Trust me, I really don't want to jump ship but when people keep whispering PHP/ASP etc. to management, and the product cost is, well free. It makes it a really hard sell. We have also had,in the past a really hard time finding good quality CF developers. Which management also takes as a sign that CF is not worth the effort. Charles On 7/30/07 3:53 PM, "John Mason" <mason@fusionlink.com> wrote: You can use the Oracle j2ee drivers (that comes with Oracle) to work with CF standard. Just a little more work on your end, but it works fine. This is for Oracle 10g, it may be slightly different for other versions.. -Find the ojdbc14.jar driver on your oracle installation -Put that jar into your WEB-INF\lib -In coldfusion, create a new datasource and choose "other" as the driver         -JDBC URL would be jdbc:oracle:thin:@ip:port:database         -Driver Class oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver Now why does CF standard not just go ahead and do this for you. Well franky I don't know, but it really doesn't matter if you have the drivers anyway. It does confuse the hack out of people, which is bad. Wanted to make sure you knew this before you decided to jump ship :) John mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 http://www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in CF. For example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. You know, I don't disagree with them. I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. Adobe thanks for the memories, a user/developer since version 4.5. - Charles On 7/30/07 5:27 AM, "Adam Haskell" <a.haskell@gmail.com> wrote: I want to echo what Sean said...I looked at CF8 and thought, "wow finally a product that I would really label Enterprise." Not to say CF7 wasn't Enterprise, it had some great features and was a great release, but I think the monitoring and some of the Administration changes helped make it really enterprise friendly. Thats not mentioning the performance enhancements, exchange integration (which currently means nothing to Lotus Shops bleh), and whole suite of ajax tools that really make CF shine as a UI web layer for large Java apps. You have to look at this product and realize enterprise is worthless to you unless you really need super scalability. Standard has it all, albeit limited/throttled. Sure cfthread and exchange integration and PDF (?) are throttled but they are available and until you have 100+ (dare I say probably more) concurrent users using the exact same functionality Enterprise means very little. Its like a computer, my Mom doesn't need a dual core 64bit AMD with 2gig of ram and 256mb dedicate graphics card running iSCSI to send me pictures and read email (unless she is running Vista then she might ;) ). Gone are the days where you have to have enterprise to play with those nifty event gateways. If enterprise looks to expensive to you then you probably don't need it, or you need to look at some other Enterprise software costs and revisit in 15 minutes. Hell I say that single move by Adobe to offer a more complete Standard Edition will open more doors for ColdFusion than any single feature. I say Bravo! Adam Haskell ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

>Trust me, I really don't want to jump ship but when people keep whispering PHP/ASP etc. to management, and the product cost is, well free. It makes it a really hard sell. We have also had,in the past a really hard time finding good quality CF   developers. -------------------------- Others have mention this already but PHP and ASP are only free if you don't value your time and you prefer to write larger amounts of code. Granted, it's hard to sale this to management sometimes with the prices printed right there, but you could do a simple code off. Do a set of code in ASP, PHP and ColdFusion that simply calls a datasource and outputs the data. This is a very basic operation that we all do and it doesn't take much to appreciate the simplicity of CF in this example. Now magnify that difference over weeks, months or years. The time alone you're saving should easy balance out the price. Now finding experienced CF developers, yes, the field is tight. Here in Atlanta they work for the companies like UPS, Alltel, Federal Reserve, etc. Hardly a dying language, but yes experienced Cfers are expensive and in short supply. Good news for all of us :) But frankly I think that people forget how quickly they themselves probably learned CF. Don't go around looking for a CF guy, just pull some CIS/CS majors straight out of college. Most of them now have basic Java/OO/XML experience. They probably haven't heard of CF and wouldn't know to look for a job in that area, but learning CF with this background takes very little time at all. Plus you'll get them on the cheap :) John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting

> Just because a client doesn't want to drop 1/4 or 1/5 oif > their budget on an application server doesn't mean that > they're not worth doing business with. If doing so would save them money in the long run, and if this is something they could easily discover by, oh, doing their job and calculating ROI, then they're not worth doing business with. It's not worth doing business with people who can't discern value, because they won't be able to discern your true value either. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

I couldn't have said it better myself Dave. Rey Dave Watts wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Most people buying Enterprise are not doing so to support the output of a single developer. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

You can use the Oracle j2ee drivers (that comes with Oracle) to work with CF standard. Just a little more work on your end, but it works fine. This is for Oracle 10g, it may be slightly different for other versions.. -Find the ojdbc14.jar driver on your oracle installation -Put that jar into your WEB-INF\lib -In coldfusion, create a new datasource and choose "other" as the driver   -JDBC URL would be jdbc:oracle:thin:@ip:port:database   -Driver Class oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver Now why does CF standard not just go ahead and do this for you. Well franky I don't know, but it really doesn't matter if you have the drivers anyway. It does confuse the hack out of people, which is bad. Wanted to make sure you knew this before you decided to jump ship :) John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting So, I have to agree with Dale... Adobe has put a bullet in CF. For example, Standard Edition would be fine for me but I need Oracle access and now I need to pay twice that just to do supported Oracle connectivity.  We are an enterprise and when I discussed this with management they came back and said we should just invest our time in ASP.NET. We can retrain our developers, and not worry about buying upgrades and we'll get new features as they come out. You know, I don't disagree with them. I just recently started playing with Visual Studio .Net, and it's far easier to write web services and create great web content. Adobe thanks for the memories, a user/developer since version 4.5. - Charles

Ok, my forth attempt to post this. Jeez, the list server was down for two attempts and then I got 2 bounces saying my message is over 100 lines. Hopefully this one will get through. This is in reply to Charles talking about needing CF Ent for the Oracle connectivity. You can use the Oracle j2ee drivers (that comes with Oracle) to work with CF standard. Just a little more work on your end, but it works fine. This is for Oracle 10g, it may be slightly different for other versions.. -Find the ojdbc14.jar driver on your oracle installation -Put that jar into your WEB-INF\lib -In coldfusion, create a new datasource and choose "other" as the driver   -JDBC URL would be jdbc:oracle:thin:@ip:port:database   -Driver Class oracle.jdbc.OracleDriver Now why does CF standard not just go ahead and do this for you. Well franky I don't know, but it really doesn't matter if you have the drivers anyway. It does confuse the hack out of people, which is bad. Wanted to make sure you knew this before you decided to jump ship :) John Mason mason@fusionlink.com 770.337.8363 www.FusionLink.com - ColdFusion and Flex hosting Now offering ColdFusion 8 Enterprise hosting FREE Subversion hosting

> Ok, my forth attempt to post this. Jeez, the list server was down for two > attempts and then I got 2 bounces saying my message is over 100 lines. No, we got all four of your messages. The warning about being over 100 lines is just a warning - because you didn't trim quotes in your reply. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

> Unless the Oracle supplied driver has changed recently, some > things don't work the same as the DataDirect CF Oracle > driver, like stored procs returning results from ref cursors > and BLOBS. If it has changed, great. So, then, if you need Enterprise features, you buy Enterprise. Or, you can just go buy DataDirect Connect for JDBC yourself, and pay ~$5K. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

Agreed - Enterprise was our first choice. CF cost nothing compared to the SPARC servers on which we run it, and don't even ask what Oracle (and its SPARC hardware) costs. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- -- mxAjax / CFAjax docs and other useful articles: http://www.bifrost.com.au/blog/

> What's the deal with people who think that you should be > happy to pay more because there are new features. No one said anything about being happy. You should, however, expect to pay more because there are new features, just like you do with every other product in existence. > If all the ColdFusion die hard's who go hide in a hole and > don't speak up when something like this stupid pricing > happens then these problems are never going to get addressed. > People are too scared to say what they think and risk > tainting their perfect CF image. I think you're reading a whole lot into nothing. Personally, I don't think the pricing is a problem. If I did, then I'd agree with you. Either it's worth the price to you, or it isn't. I do notice it's a whole lot cheaper than Oracle or SQL Server database servers. These "problems", like any other market issues, will be decided by the market. I suspect that the market of enterprise buyers will not be put off by the price increase of CF Enterprise. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

> What's the deal with people who think that you should be happy to pay > more because there are new features. All I can say is, Thanks Adobe. I just got my company to pay for a series of clases for .net and vb.net. Worked out OK for me. Don't know if it will work out for Adobe when we start dumping CF. Robert B. Harrison Director of Interactive services Austin & Williams 125 Kennedy Drive, Suite 100 Hauppauge NY 11788 T : 631.231.6600 Ext. 119 F : 631.434.7022 www.austin-williams.com Great advertising can't be either/or... It must be &. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 7/30/2007 5:02 PM

Robert, Its sad to see any developer give up on CF but it sounds that by you saying, "I just got my company to pay for a series of classes for .net and vb.net", its a decision that you've been mulling for some time. You just don't wake up one day and arbitrarily say, "I'm going to drop several thousands of dollars on retooling our staff". Rey... Robert Harrison wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Its sad to see any developer give up on CF but it sounds that by you saying... I just want to get Adobe to drop the price. It's a hard sell to some clients and we've lost some opportunities because of it. I'll always continue to use CF as my mainstay, but also learning .net is not a bad thing... And whenever we have lost a site it's always been to .net technology. For what it's worth I've always been, and still am a CF advocate. But the reality is it's a business market and it's doesn't hurt to have alternative options to give your clients. Robert B. Harrison Director of Interactive services Austin & Williams 125 Kennedy Drive, Suite 100 Hauppauge NY 11788 T : 631.231.6600 Ext. 119 F : 631.434.7022 www.austin-williams.com Great advertising can't be either/or... It must be &. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 7/30/2007 5:02 PM

Why could you not provide the license free or at reduced price and pad the cost into other invoice items? When I buy stuff on the web, I am a sucker for free shipping - knowing that it's not really free. If a client balks at buying a server license, why not sell them a dedicated hosting plan with CF support so that the cost is spread out over months? You have to take advantage of the fact that most people can't do basic math. When I visit a car dealership, the salesman might *like* to sell me a Shelby Mustang, but if I only have $15,000 to spend he will not let me leave the car lot without trying to sell me a used Ford Focus. The point I'm getting to is that this has nothing to do with Adobe's pricing, and it has everything to do with salesmanship. I just want to get Adobe to drop the price. It's a hard sell to some clients and we've lost some opportunities because of it. I'll always continue to use CF as my mainstay, but also learning .net is not a bad thing... And whenever we have lost a site it's always been to .net technology. For what it's worth I've always been, and still am a CF advocate. But the reality is it's a business market and it's doesn't hurt to have alternative options to give your clients.

I really this this horse is dead, and has been dead for a while.  The truth is that if you go to a Cadillac dealer with $15,000 they tell me to go to another dealership. Billy Cox wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

This happened to me when I was working at Baylor. When new management took over, they were totally on the MS banswagon and I was forced to learn .NET/C#. They completely did away with over 5 years of Intranet in ColdFusion and decided to convert it all to .NET. I was disappointed that they did not give CF a chance and excited to learn a new technology. I became frustrated when I discovered that it took me more than twice as long to write .NET code as it did CF. And I was re-writing the sites that I originally did in CF, so it is not as though I were not familiar with the app. In a nutshell, MS thinks "Why go three houses down to get there when you can go around the block?". I will forever stay with CF if I can. Of course I keep my .NET skills up just in case. Since I am in a brand spanky new position at our school district, I get to call the shots and they just ordered me SQL Server 2005 and CF8 along with new hardware to go with them. Pretty exciting. And I am going to get my FLEX skills up to the level where I can re-write the district website in FLEX. Wooo Hoo. So Robert, get ready to spend more time coding. Heh. Robert, Its sad to see any developer give up on CF but it sounds that by you saying, "I just got my company to pay for a series of classes for .net and vb.net", its a decision that you've been mulling for some time. You just don't wake up one day and arbitrarily say, "I'm going to drop several thousands of dollars on retooling our staff". Rey...

... > All I can say is, Thanks Adobe. I just got my company to pay for a series of > clases for .net and vb.net. > > Worked out OK for me. Don't know if it will work out for Adobe when we start > dumping CF. Eeeew!  dot net?  *gags* (nothing wrong with it, just saying) CF does some nifty stuff, but you can do it all yourself, too.  A good bit of CF is open source Java libs and whatnot-  or there's Ruby, which I hear good stuff about- for those looping and if/then whatnot bits. Sheesh, aren't there enough .net "don't really know squat" peeps out there? Do you really want to be counted amongst their number?  MS is like the Micky D's of computers- but I don't think MS training is as good, in general. And MS would be lucky to have me.  But I won't do that, neither. Feel free, to feel good, and whatnot, but a $$ reason as an excuse to go M$?  That's sorta silly, I think.

I would love to see the ROI calculation on this decision: x amount for classes x amount for time to attend the classes (as an aside, learn C# instead of vb.net... you will thank me later) x time to actually get proficient at .NET x copies of Visual Studio x time to convert existing CF code Seems you could buy a lot of copies of CF Enterprise with that. Now, I'm pretty pragmatic about language selection - CF is not the only, or always the best, choice, but this type of knee-jerk reaction to a minor price hike strikes me as a more than a bit over the top. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Yeah...isn't MS discontinuing support for VB? Eric I would love to see the ROI calculation on this decision: x amount for classes x amount for time to attend the classes (as an aside, learn C# instead of vb.net... you will thank me later) x time to actually get proficient at .NET x copies of Visual Studio x time to convert existing CF code Seems you could buy a lot of copies of CF Enterprise with that. Now, I'm pretty pragmatic about language selection - CF is not the only, or always the best, choice, but this type of knee-jerk reaction to a minor price hike strikes me as a more than a bit over the top. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

any idea when those of us with the upgrade subscription thingie can expect our copies to show up? thanks tony :) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Lol.  Thanks's for the insult. I purposely asked on the list because: 1) It was a thread that actually technical for once 2) I figured other people could benefit from the answer 3) I wanted to know how Brian was using it in the context of CF, which Google probably won't tell me. Kind of like when you ask a question in the class for the benefit of everyone else as much as yourself.  Heck, we could just shut this list down, and forward all houseoffusion traffic to www.justfriggingoogleit.com but that would sort of defeat the community, wouldn't it? ~Brad > That sure sounds cool. > What is it? www.justfuckinggoogleit.com http://www.google.com/search?q=fips+140

...*handing Brad a sense of humor*...it was a joke.  Relax...  I think Google is an unofficial part of the community.    It's probably one of the more valuable resources for CF besides CFWACK and this list... Eric Lol.  Thanks's for the insult. I purposely asked on the list because: 1) It was a thread that actually technical for once 2) I figured other people could benefit from the answer 3) I wanted to know how Brian was using it in the context of CF, which Google probably won't tell me. Kind of like when you ask a question in the class for the benefit of everyone else as much as yourself.  Heck, we could just shut this list down, and forward all houseoffusion traffic to www.justfriggingoogleit.com but that would sort of defeat the community, wouldn't it? ~Brad > That sure sounds cool. > What is it? www.justfuckinggoogleit.com http://www.google.com/search?q=fips+140

> The .Net development not only creates the web service but it > also creates WSDL and a Test page to test the web service. CF creates WSDL in the same manner. No test page, though. > I've also found the web service code generated by CF does not > include the proper header info, which has caused some application > developers a headache consuming some of the web services. And what "proper header info" is that exactly? Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- You might want to look at some other J2EE app servers, if you thing CF 8 is priced comparatively high. WebSphere, WebLogic, Oracle AS ... Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net

We have a subscription.  We called Adobe today and apparently we are waiting for a coupon code to arrive in our E-mail.  This might take up to two weeks they said. I sure am glad we got the subscription, but 2 weeks feels like forever right now. :) ~Brad any idea when those of us with the upgrade subscription thingie can expect our copies to show up? thanks tony :)

There might be more, but the only "throttle" in standard that I know of right off is that the cfdocument tag is single-threaded.  Only one can execute on the server at a time. ~Brad PS: Everyone will be very interested now in where they can find clear info on how the standard features are throttled, I for one don't want to start debugging code when things go slow to find that the server is doing this. I want to know in advance of what every limit is. Does such a document exist?

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I want to know this too. -- mac jordan home: www.kestrel.org work: www.webhorus.net them: www.jordan-cats.org

> There might be more, but the only "throttle" in standard that I know of > right off is that the cfdocument tag is single-threaded.  Only one can > execute on the server at a time. I asked Google for "adobe.com EFR ColdFusion" and found some very information comments in this thread: http://www.forta.com/blog/index.cfm/2007/7/30/ColdFusion-8-Is-Here Jason Delmore, ColdFusion Product Manager, explains (more than once) what the EFR does. He also points folks to the new Performance Brief published on the website. And he addresses the number of sites you can run on Standard (by confirming the "guideline" statement that was explained elsewhere in this thread). As I noted (elsewhere in this thread I think?), if each EFR-throttled request takes less than five seconds (extremely likely!) then you can serve about 17k such requests per day. If each request takes two seconds or less, you can serve about 43k such requests per day. That's in addition to requests for all the non-EFR features in your app. -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

On Wednesday 01 Aug 2007, mark.drew@gmail.com wrote: > If this thread goes on any longer I am going to double the price of > CFEclipse so it fits into the Enterprise Market. So we can advertise CFEclipse as 'twice as free' now, right ? :-) -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.   If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

ROFL On Wednesday 01 Aug 2007, mark.drew@gmail.com wrote: > If this thread goes on any longer I am going to double the price of > CFEclipse so it fits into the Enterprise Market. So we can advertise CFEclipse as 'twice as free' now, right ? :-) -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

Refer to my post late last night.  I outlined exactly what features are throttled in standard in the " Server Monitoring in Standard" thread. It's all available here: http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/pdfs/cf8_featurecomp.pdf ~Brad =========================== PS: Everyone will be very interested now in where they can find clear info on how the standard features are throttled, I for one don't want to start debugging code when things go slow to find that the server is doing this. I want to know in advance of what every limit is. Does such a document exist? Regards Dale Fraser ***************************** I would agree..that would be useful info...Oh Adobe.... Eric

On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, dale@fraser.id.au wrote: > > Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) > Wrong, CF7 came out more than 2 years ago so everyone who bought a > subscription with CF7 release wasted their money. How so ? -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.   If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

ColdFusion 7 came out in February 2005. If you bought 7 then, with the two year subscription, then that subscription had expired before 8 was released so you got no benefit. If you happened to buy ColdFusion 7 from August 2005 onwards, woo hoo. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

If I remember correctly the Subs said one Major Upgrade (well they did for 6 upto 7) So you may have a case there? But you should always renew your subs its always cheaper. ColdFusion 7 came out in February 2005. If you bought 7 then, with the two year subscription, then that subscription had expired before 8 was released so you got no benefit. If you happened to buy ColdFusion 7 from August 2005 onwards, woo hoo. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. > > CONFIDENTIALITY > > This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. > > For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. > > >

How So? A Sub is for 24 months, which means you get free updates for 2 years. There hasn't been an upgrade for more than 2 years, which means you got nothing for your sub $ if you purchased CF7 + Sub when it got released. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, dale@fraser.id.au wrote: > > Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) > Wrong, CF7 came out more than 2 years ago so everyone who bought a > subscription with CF7 release wasted their money. How so ? -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

The idea of subs with all products is to make the upgrading cheaper, thus you keep the subs going your ensure your upgrade path is cheaper, I would suggest if you have subs and no free upgrade this time discuss with Adobe, as I'm sure it says One Major Release in that time. How So? A Sub is for 24 months, which means you get free updates for 2 years. There hasn't been an upgrade for more than 2 years, which means you got nothing for your sub $ if you purchased CF7 + Sub when it got released. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, dale@fraser.id.au wrote: > > Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) > Wrong, CF7 came out more than 2 years ago so everyone who bought a > subscription with CF7 release wasted their money. How so ? -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

No it doesn't. It says 12 months or 24 months, so it's a bit of pot luck. Although 8 releases in 12 years, the odds for a release in 2 years are good. This might be the first one that was more than 2 years not sure. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com The idea of subs with all products is to make the upgrading cheaper, thus you keep the subs going your ensure your upgrade path is cheaper, I would suggest if you have subs and no free upgrade this time discuss with Adobe, as I'm sure it says One Major Release in that time. How So? A Sub is for 24 months, which means you get free updates for 2 years. There hasn't been an upgrade for more than 2 years, which means you got nothing for your sub $ if you purchased CF7 + Sub when it got released. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, dale@fraser.id.au wrote: > > Well, you should have bought maintenance then, shouldn't you? :) > Wrong, CF7 came out more than 2 years ago so everyone who bought a > subscription with CF7 release wasted their money. How so ? -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

But, you can renew a subscription, correct?  I was with the understanding that you make the first initial purchase of CF, then you can choose to purchase CF subscriptions for as long as you need. For example, before your two-year subscription expires, I thought you could renew that subscription without having to pay the full price again. Please correct me if I'm wrong. M!ke No it doesn't. It says 12 months or 24 months, so it's a bit of pot luck. Although 8 releases in 12 years, the odds for a release in 2 years are good. This might be the first one that was more than 2 years not sure. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com

Yes, we were able to.  It was something like $520 for two years. But, you can renew a subscription, correct?  I was with the understanding that you make the first initial purchase of CF, then you can choose to purchase CF subscriptions for as long as you need. For example, before your two-year subscription expires, I thought you could renew that subscription without having to pay the full price again. Please correct me if I'm wrong. M!ke This email message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this email message from your computer. CAUTION: The Agency of Human Services cannot ensure the confidentiality or security of email transmissions.

You are correct, I just did it a little while ago (about March).  Saved a bundle! Steve But, you can renew a subscription, correct?  I was with the understanding that you make the first initial purchase of CF, then you can choose to purchase CF subscriptions for as long as you need. For example, before your two-year subscription expires, I thought you could renew that subscription without having to pay the full price again. Please correct me if I'm wrong. M!ke No it doesn't. It says 12 months or 24 months, so it's a bit of pot luck. Although 8 releases in 12 years, the odds for a release in 2 years are good. This might be the first one that was more than 2 years not sure. Regards Dale Fraser http://dalefraser.blogspot.com

On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, andy.allan@gmail.com wrote: > If you bought 7 then, with the two year subscription, then that > subscription had expired before 8 was released so you got no benefit. Except the sub. gets you support, and you'll probably have renewed, so you'll get CF9 for free :-) -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.   If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

Exactly ... subscriptions are good. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, dale@fraser.id.au wrote: > releases in 12 years, the odds for a release in 2 years are good. This > might be the first one that was more than 2 years not sure. And was probably delayed because Macromedia got bought mid-way in the CF8 cycle. -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.   If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

On Thursday 02 Aug 2007, Oblio.Leitch@ahs.state.vt.us wrote: > Yes, we were able to.  It was something like $520 for two years. So, even if you had to pay twice to get CF7 and CF8, that's still cheaper than buying it outright. -- Tom Chiverton **************************************************** This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF.  A list of members is available for inspection at the