hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 105 replies
  • Subscribers 19 subscribers
  • Views 4757 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Sma

marky
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?
  • Paying for an SMA is not an issue for me. What IS an issue is having to fork up for all the years one did NOT pay for an SMA. That's the thorn in my rear. And just because it is corporate policy for thousands of companies does NOT make it right. It is outright ROBBERY. Hexagon is a sort of 'Clip Joint'. (look it up)
  • About SMAs and MRs:
    There has been one exception to the "pay or you don't play" rule.
    3.7 MR4 is available to anyone who has 3.7 MR3 whether you have a current SMA or not. As far as I know the only difference between MR3 and MR4 is a code correction involving .stp file translation into the PC-DMIS .CAD file format.
    I don't know all of the details about why this is the case (free MR update), but from what scuttlebutt I have been able to glean from these threads my guess is that it is this way to avoid risk. Risk as in law-suit type risk. This is my "guess" and I have no facts to support it.

  • Brian I addressed my remark to Kenny, or are you two one and the same, that would explain. . .

    I realize that everything I post, you are all over, but I can honestly say that not EVERY post I make is aimed at you. I am still posting here despite your presence, not because of it.

    You and I have opposing view points on the issue of SMA & whether or not a MR should be considered a "patch" of a full version that would not require current SMA. Kenny jumped in and took up for you on the grounds that you have helped people. I was pointing out in my usual sarcastic and obtuse manner that I have helped people too. Nowhere did I even so much as hint at the possible implication you might have said I did not help people. Did you need a trolly for that ego? Neutral face


    Wes, sarcasm, you? Surely you jest.

    Going backwards should not be a choice you have to make. The latest is SUPPOSE to be the greatest and if it's not, then shame on them (Hexagon).

    I'm not going backwards.

    So what you're telling me is even though my SMA is expired, I can still download, install and use any software versions/maintenance releases that WERE available BEFORE it expired.

    I'm running version 4.2 MR1 and my SMA expired 6/30/2008. MR2 for version 4.2 was available 12/11/2008, so I can't get it.

    Now this is the funny part. Version 4.3 was released 6/26/2008, so I can get 4.3 because it was released BEFORE my SMA expired.

    Let me know if I'm right.

    Give the man a cigar! I'm in the same boat, 4.2mr1, SMA expired August 2008.

    It is also my opinion that Maintainance Releases (patches) for your version should be no-charge. That's how Windows operates. All my pc's (work and home) continually receive updates (patches) and not one penny is charged. How many millions of seats of Windows are there?

    Why is this so different?
  • It is also my opinion that Maintainance Releases (patches) for your version should be no-charge. That's how Windows operates. All my pc's (work and home) continually receive updates (patches) and not one penny is charged. Why is this so different?

    Because they can.
  • Because they can.

    What, you don't get sarcasm either? Rolling eyes
  • Too many posts deleted today by the thought police!
  • Wes, sarcasm, you? Surely you jest.



    Give the man a cigar! I'm in the same boat, 4.2mr1, SMA expired August 2008.

    It is also my opinion that Maintainance Releases (patches) for your version should be no-charge. That's how Windows operates. All my pc's (work and home) continually receive updates (patches) and not one penny is charged. How many millions of seats of Windows are there?

    Why is this so different?

    I do not jest, and don't call me Shirley! (You can call me LaVerne if you whisper it delicately in my ear. . . )

    I'll tell you exactly why I think this is different. If you have to "give away" the MRs for "free" then it might begin to make sense to actually put the proper amount of time and effort into the major releases to ensure most of the stuff in there works like it should, instead of just shoving whatever you have out the door because of a "One Major Release per Year" policy. There is not a new version of Windows every year. I guess that is why Microsoft has been so unsuccessful. Neutral face



  • Wes, sarcasm, you? Surely you jest.



    Give the man a cigar! I'm in the same boat, 4.2mr1, SMA expired August 2008.

    It is also my opinion that Maintainance Releases (patches) for your version should be no-charge. That's how Windows operates. All my pc's (work and home) continually receive updates (patches) and not one penny is charged. How many millions of seats of Windows are there?

    Why is this so different?

    I think this is some of the difference. PC-DMIS is not installed in practically every house in the civilized world.
  • I think this is some of the difference. PC-DMIS is not installed in practically every house in the civilized world.

    Thank god for that.....I do
  • I think this is some of the difference. PC-DMIS is not installed in practically every house in the civilized world.

    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.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement