I would prefer they release it free for RB 9 users.
I agreed when they started to charge in release 7 because they had made a lot of improvements over the years and they need to survive. But then come release 9 and now 10 with few improvements a too much money to upgrade it.
It is only my opinion.
It would be desirable to have a way to make RB9 work for BDS2006?
Should be released in the next few weeks. Hard to give a specific date - when get down to finalizing a release...as I am sure everyone can relate to this. We try hard to time things perfectly so that we can have RB 10 available at the precise moment time that Borland decides to start shipping D2006. But it can be tough - RB 10 is a huge development project (as was RB 9).
A ton of effort goes into our releases - RB 9 added many great new features and we are totally psyched about about RB 10!
Best regards,
Nard Moseley Digital Metaphors www.digital-metaphors.com
we just updated to RB 9 although it was more because we had some AV troubles and it looks like it really reduced in 9. But basically I was not sure why there was a such big jump in version numbers. Now you announce RB 10 without any more details about functionality than that it would support Delphi 2006. We all know that changing a reporting tool is a biiiig move, but if the RB community feels a development in the wrong direction, I fear that this will not help the whole group of RB users. I still think it is a great product and I cannot imagine why supporting Delphi 2006 with RB 9 should be so difficult. I strongly recomend that you play an open game with your customers and explain the DM's strategy for the comping years and versions. I persoanlly would be willing to pay for this update, if I get a good feeling about the future of this step.
Don't get me wrong, but you (DM) should consider to explain a bit more how you can see the further development with a rough time planning.
> Don't get me wrong, but you (DM) should consider to explain a bit more how
I agree, and why is it so hard to get an answer about supporting C++ Builder 2006. I know there's a problem about abstract classes but it's so simple to solve and then they only have to tick a box and hey presto C++ Support.
I can't comment on 2006, but if you have the source code, couldn't you simply recompile the dpk's into 2006? I've done this before with other component suites, and some times, you don't even need to change anything. Or, is D2006 a major shift in structure?
The source code for the RAP portion of is not included, so you can't just recompile for a new version of Delphi. As long as DM stays in business, it's just a minor inconvenience. But if something were to happen to them, we would either be locked into a specific version of Delphi or looking for a new print engine.
My app replies on RAP so I have never tried recompiling it. If RAP isn't embedded anywhere within the rest of the source code, I supposed that you could recompile the non-RAP areas, which should include the full standard and professional versions.
I find this sales tactic to be just a little annoying. I can understand DM trying to maximise revenue streams by making customers upgrade with versions of delphi but these really do have to be timely updates. It is unacceptable to hold up everyone elses timetables if you have been caught out by an early release from borland. Another part of my gripe is that DM have a product which, by its nature locks customers in. So it seems unnecessary to me that DM does its upgrades in this way. As a contrast, Remobjects, who also have a closed source part of their library and are closer to a final release of a new version than DM, had supplied me with an unofficial version of their closed source part of the product within a couple of days and that allowed me to recompile the rest of the library. I know which company I feel more loyal to. I have now been forced to compile report builder into a dll and I'm using that from D2006, although this is far from ideal it gives me a chance to actually develop with D2006 and consider the competition. Don't get me wrong I really like Report Builder and I always upgrade for the new features I just object the sales tactics that are being used.
Nard Moseley (Digital Metaphors) wrote: The problem is that a "few weeks" can easily turn into a couple of months.
Then there is usually the inevitable bugs in a new product. That's not a criticism of DM, but a fact of life in programming.
In my view it would be more expedient to release a D10 release of RB, to get us going.
As others have said, I sure don't object to paying for an upgrade to the next version, but it is important to me that I can rely on third party tools makers to provide timely releases of existing products, when a major version of Delphi is released.
I'm suprised DM aren't a Borland technology partner. We use both ReportBuilder (as a DLL due to C++) and FastReports (http://www.fast-report.com/), Fast Reports Inc are a technology partner and had a FREE Delphi2006 version well before Delphi2006 was released. They constantly update there software and have a freely distributable server (as long as you have purchased FastReport Server).
We are finding it harder and harder to justify the continued support of ReportBuilder and when they hold us to ransom over the RAP code and delay our release we feel more and more like walking away.
Now i'm sure that the features we are going to see in ReportBuilder 10 are going to be things that Delphi2006 have introduced (like the new alignment features) but surely DM can sell an upgrade on the quality of it's new features rather than the requirement of Delphi/C++Builder 2006 support.
You posted this same question on 11/1/2005 and I responded......
"We are currently focusing on supporting Delphi Win32.
We have not tested whether the packages compiled for Delphi 2006 will work with the C++ personality. Our resources are limited. We had a few customers in the past recompile the RB source and use it with C++ Builder. We will wait and see what the market demand is for C++."
Best regards,
Nard Moseley Digital Metaphors www.digital-metaphors.com
Keep up the good work! You provide a fine quality product (including post-sale support) that most others do not achieve. I for one, am glad to see you stick to Delphi and Win32. I think even Borland released 2006 without C++ completed or included.
Comments
I agreed when they started to charge in release 7 because they had made a
lot of improvements over the years and they need to survive. But then come
release 9 and now 10 with few improvements a too much money to upgrade it.
It is only my opinion.
It would be desirable to have a way to make RB9 work for BDS2006?
Regards
"Simon Farmer" escribi? en el
Should be released in the next few weeks. Hard to give a specific date -
when get down to finalizing a release...as I am sure everyone can relate to
this. We try hard to time things perfectly so that we can have RB 10
available at the precise moment time that Borland decides to start shipping
D2006. But it can be tough - RB 10 is a huge development project (as was RB
9).
A ton of effort goes into our releases - RB 9 added many great new features
and we are totally psyched about about RB 10!
Best regards,
Nard Moseley
Digital Metaphors
www.digital-metaphors.com
You say: totally psyched about about RB 10!
Can you tell some details?
Eric
we just updated to RB 9 although it was more because we had some AV troubles
and it looks like it really reduced in 9. But basically I was not sure why
there was a such big jump in version numbers. Now you announce RB 10 without
any more details about functionality than that it would support Delphi 2006.
We all know that changing a reporting tool is a biiiig move, but if the RB
community feels a development in the wrong direction, I fear that this will
not help the whole group of RB users.
I still think it is a great product and I cannot imagine why supporting
Delphi 2006 with RB 9 should be so difficult.
I strongly recomend that you play an open game with your customers and
explain the DM's strategy for the comping years and versions.
I persoanlly would be willing to pay for this update, if I get a good
feeling about the future of this step.
Don't get me wrong, but you (DM) should consider to explain a bit more how
you can see the further development with a rough time planning.
Stephan
I agree, and why is it so hard to get an answer about supporting C++ Builder
2006. I know there's a problem about abstract classes but it's so simple to
solve and then they only have to tick a box and hey presto C++ Support.
Simon
I can't comment on 2006, but if you have the source code, couldn't you
simply recompile the dpk's into 2006? I've done this before with other
component suites, and some times, you don't even need to change anything.
Or, is D2006 a major shift in structure?
Regards
Adam.
The source code for the RAP portion of is not included, so you can't just
recompile for a new version of Delphi. As long as DM stays in business,
it's just a minor inconvenience. But if something were to happen to them,
we would either be locked into a specific version of Delphi or looking for a
new print engine.
--
---------------------------------------
Terry Swiers
Millennium Software, LLC
http://www.1000years.com
http://www.atrex.com
Atrex Inventory Control/POS -
Big business features without spending big business bucks!
Atrex Electronic Support Options:
Atrex Knowledgebase: http://www.atrex.com/atrexkb.asp
Email: mailto:support@atrex.com
Oh, I wasn't aware of this. Does this mean that we could recompile if we
didn't want to use RAP, or that recompiling won't work at all?
Cheers
Adam.
My app replies on RAP so I have never tried recompiling it. If RAP isn't
embedded anywhere within the rest of the source code, I supposed that you
could recompile the non-RAP areas, which should include the full standard
and professional versions.
--
---------------------------------------
Terry Swiers
Millennium Software, LLC
http://www.1000years.com
http://www.atrex.com
Atrex Inventory Control/POS -
Big business features without spending big business bucks!
Atrex Electronic Support Options:
Atrex Knowledgebase: http://www.atrex.com/atrexkb.asp
Email: mailto:support@atrex.com
I find this sales tactic to be just a little annoying. I can
understand DM trying to maximise revenue streams by making customers
upgrade with versions of delphi but these really do have to be timely
updates. It is unacceptable to hold up everyone elses timetables if you
have been caught out by an early release from borland.
Another part of my gripe is that DM have a product which, by its
nature locks customers in. So it seems unnecessary to me that DM does
its upgrades in this way. As a contrast, Remobjects, who also have a
closed source part of their library and are closer to a final release
of a new version than DM, had supplied me with an unofficial version of
their closed source part of the product within a couple of days and
that allowed me to recompile the rest of the library. I know which
company I feel more loyal to.
I have now been forced to compile report builder into a dll and I'm
using that from D2006, although this is far from ideal it gives me a
chance to actually develop with D2006 and consider the competition.
Don't get me wrong I really like Report Builder and I always upgrade
for the new features I just object the sales tactics that are being
used.
Regards,
Will.
--
The problem is that a "few weeks" can easily turn into a couple of months.
Then there is usually the inevitable bugs in a new product. That's not a
criticism of DM, but a fact of life in programming.
In my view it would be more expedient to release a D10 release of RB, to
get us going.
As others have said, I sure don't object to paying for an upgrade to
the next version, but it is important to me that I can rely on third
party tools makers to provide timely releases of existing products, when
a major version of Delphi is released.
bill
ReportBuilder (as a DLL due to C++) and FastReports
(http://www.fast-report.com/), Fast Reports Inc are a technology partner and
had a FREE Delphi2006 version well before Delphi2006 was released. They
constantly update there software and have a freely distributable server (as
long as you have purchased FastReport Server).
We are finding it harder and harder to justify the continued support of
ReportBuilder and when they hold us to ransom over the RAP code and delay
our release we feel more and more like walking away.
Now i'm sure that the features we are going to see in ReportBuilder 10 are
going to be things that Delphi2006 have introduced (like the new alignment
features) but surely DM can sell an upgrade on the quality of it's new
features rather than the requirement of Delphi/C++Builder 2006 support.
Simon
You posted this same question on 11/1/2005 and I responded......
"We are currently focusing on supporting Delphi Win32.
We have not tested whether the packages compiled for Delphi 2006 will work
with the C++ personality. Our resources are limited. We had a few customers
in the past recompile the RB source and use it with C++ Builder. We will
wait and see what the market demand is for C++."
Best regards,
Nard Moseley
Digital Metaphors
www.digital-metaphors.com
Stephan
Well that does surprise me, if they are then they should have had plenty of
time to get Delphi2006 support up and running.
Simon
Keep up the good work! You provide a fine quality product (including post-sale
support) that most others do not achieve. I for one, am glad to see you stick
to Delphi and Win32. I think even Borland released 2006 without C++ completed
or included.