If your SMA is expired are you still entitled to MR that are released after your SMA expires? For example, I have version 4.2 and our SMA expired on 6/30/2008. Version 4.2 MR3 was released 2/10/2009. I'm I entitled to MR3?
That's my point - there are mucho fewer installs. What would be the reason why each registered installation would not be tracked and receive updates (mrX, and for a reasonable length of time) until that version is no longer supported?
Like I said, XP updates still come out fairly regularly (how long has it been out now, since 2001?), because it's still widely used and supported, where as, say, Windows 95, 98, NT, etc. are not. People do still use the older versions, but Microsoft no longer updates them, and I wouldn't expect Hex to do that either.
3.7 mr4 was the last update to 3.7, and as has been pointed out, it was "free". Why are the other updates not? I would simply expect a software manufacturer to provide any needed updates (improvements, fixes, etc.) for no extra charge. Just seems like good business to me.
You missed my point (or more likely, I didn't make it clear enough).
When a piece of software is installed in x-gazillion machines, the income from these installations provides enough revenue to cover the costs of free patches.
I am not saying that I agree with the concept of charging for bug-fixes, just that the economy of scale makes it a bit more understandable.
That's my point - there are mucho fewer installs. What would be the reason why each registered installation would not be tracked and receive updates (mrX, and for a reasonable length of time) until that version is no longer supported?
Like I said, XP updates still come out fairly regularly (how long has it been out now, since 2001?), because it's still widely used and supported, where as, say, Windows 95, 98, NT, etc. are not. People do still use the older versions, but Microsoft no longer updates them, and I wouldn't expect Hex to do that either.
3.7 mr4 was the last update to 3.7, and as has been pointed out, it was "free". Why are the other updates not? I would simply expect a software manufacturer to provide any needed updates (improvements, fixes, etc.) for no extra charge. Just seems like good business to me.
You missed my point (or more likely, I didn't make it clear enough).
When a piece of software is installed in x-gazillion machines, the income from these installations provides enough revenue to cover the costs of free patches.
I am not saying that I agree with the concept of charging for bug-fixes, just that the economy of scale makes it a bit more understandable.
