🚀 go-pugleaf

Any word on whether Metrowerks has fixed the egregious bug in Codewarrior in
which one cannot view Global or local static variables in the Debugger pane
window?  (except with the pane set on 'auto' and then only on the specific
line the variable is referenced).

I can't believe that they have not fixed that for free.  Oh, wait, I can
believe it.

Bob

In article <mwron-C91342.10503805082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
<snip>

> CodeWarrior Development Studio for Mac OS, v 9 is expected to be 
> available in early September 2003, and may be purchased directly from 
> Metrowerks.  Renewal pricing for users of Versions 7 and 8 of the 
> CodeWarrior studio is available.  The pre-sale special pricing for new 
> Mac OS developers is $349(USD) per license for the base product (Mac OS 
> X host and Mac OS X target) and $199(USD) for license renewals.

<snip>

Hi Ron:

Well this is good news (probably). Last year for me to renew my 
installation of CW Mac/Windows the cost was $349US. 

Today I can do it for $249 which is a nice saving - except that last 
year I also got the Java developement capabilities included.

So Ron my question is how much do I have to pay extra for the Jave side 
now?

The web site dosn't yet say although it does have an email address for 
suggestions....

I actually like the idea of only paying for what I need so the per 
capability licencing fee dosn't bend my nose out of shape.

Hope you had a good vacation on the hog....

respect....

Peter

> So Ron my question is how much do I have to pay extra for the Jave side 
> now?

If there _is_ Java... Check out the webpage 
<http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Macintosh/Professional/mac9
.htm0>:

> In order to provide our developers with this lower cost, this version 
> supports C, C++, and Objective-C. If you are interested in developing for the 
> Java platform and would like to provide feedback on what you would like to 
> see added to our Java tools for Mac OS, please email macjava@metrowerks.com.

But dude <http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Macintosh/Activation.htm>:

> The product will run in evaluation mode until you apply a permanent license 
> key for the targets you need.

Man. As much as it wouldn't affect me (I've always paid and never 
shared), I still don't like activation.

Avi

-- 
Avi Drissman                                          drissman@acm.org
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                      http://www.drissman.com/avi/
                       FOR COMMENT CHANNELS ONLY

In article 
<pteesonNOT-3AC959.12204405082003@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Peter Teeson <pteesonNOT@ATrogers.com> wrote:

>In article <mwron-C91342.10503805082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
> MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> CodeWarrior Development Studio for Mac OS, v 9 is expected to be 
>> available in early September 2003, and may be purchased directly from 
>> Metrowerks.  Renewal pricing for users of Versions 7 and 8 of the 
>> CodeWarrior studio is available.  The pre-sale special pricing for new 
>> Mac OS developers is $349(USD) per license for the base product (Mac OS 
>> X host and Mac OS X target) and $199(USD) for license renewals.
>
><snip>
>
>Hi Ron:
>
>Well this is good news (probably). Last year for me to renew my 
>installation of CW Mac/Windows the cost was $349US. 
>
>Today I can do it for $249 which is a nice saving - except that last 
>year I also got the Java developement capabilities included.
>
>So Ron my question is how much do I have to pay extra for the Jave side 
>now?
>
>The web site dosn't yet say although it does have an email address for 
>suggestions....


To be determined but I think you can get an estimate by the other prices.

>I actually like the idea of only paying for what I need so the per 
>capability licencing fee dosn't bend my nose out of shape.

This has been a big suggestion for some years now.  It will also let us 
judge what people are using a lot better and set priorities properly.  

>Hope you had a good vacation on the hog....

Actually I was writing documents for 4 days and went to Cedar Point for 
the weekend.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <avi-BC4D7C.13270405082003@news-50.giganews.com>,
 Avi Drissman <avi@drissman.com> wrote:

>> So Ron my question is how much do I have to pay extra for the Jave side 
>> now?
>
>If there _is_ Java... Check out the webpage 
><http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Macintosh/Professional/mac9
>.htm0>:

Not initially  (no Windows host in September either).

>> In order to provide our developers with this lower cost, this version 
>> supports C, C++, and Objective-C. If you are interested in developing for 
>> the 
>> Java platform and would like to provide feedback on what you would like to 
>> see added to our Java tools for Mac OS, please email macjava@metrowerks.com.
>
>But dude 
><http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Macintosh/Activation.htm>:
>
>> The product will run in evaluation mode until you apply a permanent license 
>> key for the targets you need.
>
>Man. As much as it wouldn't affect me (I've always paid and never 
>shared), I still don't like activation.

Well this isn't any link between systems so the danger of someone 
reading your computer information is not there.  

But I will pass this on to management

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <BB5542D6.A897%bobito@abac.com>,
 "bobito@abac.com" <bobito@abac.com> wrote:

>Any word on whether Metrowerks has fixed the egregious bug in Codewarrior in
>which one cannot view Global or local static variables in the Debugger pane
>window?  (except with the pane set on 'auto' and then only on the specific
>line the variable is referenced).

Basically this is not a Metrowerks bug, it is a limitation because of 
some things we have no control over. 

>I can't believe that they have not fixed that for free.  Oh, wait, I can
>believe it.

Actually CW 8.3 did fix it and it was free.  When the tides are right it 
works for me just fine... but I do know what you mean and for most 
people it still is funky at best.   

I don't want to blame others we do need to find alternative workarounds 
but this really is not a simple thing to do for this OS.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <avi-BC4D7C.13270405082003@news-50.giganews.com>, Avi
Drissman <avi@drissman.com> wrote:

> > The product will run in evaluation mode until you apply a permanent license 
> > key for the targets you need.
> 
> Man. As much as it wouldn't affect me (I've always paid and never 
> shared), I still don't like activation.
> 
> Avi

But without nice, solid license key protection mechanisms in place,
Metrowerks profits have certainly suffered due to rampant piracy.  So,
with the tightly protected CW Studio 9, Metrowerks should see more
legitimate licensees than ever.  Hence, Metrowerks should able to pass
a fraction of these savings/profits on to us developers, by
significantly dropping the price of the toolkit.  

Fair is fair.  How about it, Ron?  Will you take this to the suits? 
Ready to announce a new, more widely affordable price structure?  

Me, it looks like I'll be sitting out this release, and spending the
money on movies, pinball, and pizza.  Wake me in time for CW Studio 10
when G5-specific optimizations are implemented....

EO

Well - looks like I skip this rev - hate to do it - but paring down the
product breadth (no Java for one) and 9 won't really be ready for the G5's.
Guess I will have to take a deeper dive into Sun's free IDE for Java.

I have kept up with CW since Think went south. I have had both the Windoze
and Mac versions - every time. I have made food use of each and also the
Java components. No more, alas.

Like I said - I was hoping to see CW 8 hang around until the G5 version was
ready - so that even more bugs and compatibility changes had been made to 8
- but why listen to me? - my post on that was yanked.

Tom Anderson

In article <BB55C7F5.B485%tom325@sbcglobal.net>, Tom Anderson
<tom325@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

This is a big release for me - mainly because of PowerPlant X. I've
been holding off from starting a new (shareware) project because I want
to use PPX, actually.  I don't have any trouble with a $200 upgrade,
even though it's a lot. So, congrats to Metro for what is looking like
a really big upgrade.

However, the licensing thing is difficult. I have a main development
machine, like everyone, but I also have a bunch of other machines that
I test and debug on. Do I have to "disable" one machine in order to use
another?


M

In article <BB55C7F5.B485%tom325@sbcglobal.net>,
 Tom Anderson <tom325@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Well - looks like I skip this rev - hate to do it - but paring down the
>product breadth (no Java for one) and 9 won't really be ready for the G5's.
>Guess I will have to take a deeper dive into Sun's free IDE for Java.
>
>I have kept up with CW since Think went south. I have had both the Windoze
>and Mac versions - every time. I have made food use of each and also the
>Java components. No more, alas.

There is basically nothing new with Java, but if you really want to 
donate your money to Metrowerks  I'm sure we can sell you what you have 
again.  

>Like I said - I was hoping to see CW 8 hang around until the G5 version was
>ready - so that even more bugs and compatibility changes had been made to 8
>- but why listen to me? - my post on that was yanked.

We don't yank any posts It should still be in the archives if it was 
posted.

We do have several new items for CodeWarrior and Mac OS X and Panther 
will be out shortly, and we need to be ready for that.  I think we need 
to get CW 9 for Mac out the door.   We could be setting waiting for 
months or years for G5's and even then I doubt many people will target 
them for years.   If it wasn't for FAT applications there wouldn't have 
been PPC only targets for years after it came out. 

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <060820030802063617%Forget@forget.com>,
 Mikey <Forget@forget.com> wrote:

>In article <BB55C7F5.B485%tom325@sbcglobal.net>, Tom Anderson
><tom325@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>This is a big release for me - mainly because of PowerPlant X. I've
>been holding off from starting a new (shareware) project because I want
>to use PPX, actually.  I don't have any trouble with a $200 upgrade,
>even though it's a lot. So, congrats to Metro for what is looking like
>a really big upgrade.
>
>However, the licensing thing is difficult. I have a main development
>machine, like everyone, but I also have a bunch of other machines that
>I test and debug on. Do I have to "disable" one machine in order to use
>another?

Technically that was never legal,  the license changed about 4 years ago 
to a single machine license.  You bring up a good point and i'll pass it 
on,  can you please send me an e-mail that I can forward to the powers 
that be.

Thanks,

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <050820031439310655%ercole@olivario.org>,
 Ercole Olivario <ercole@olivario.org> wrote:


>But without nice, solid license key protection mechanisms in place,
>Metrowerks profits have certainly suffered due to rampant piracy.  So,
>with the tightly protected CW Studio 9, Metrowerks should see more
>legitimate licensees than ever.  Hence, Metrowerks should able to pass
>a fraction of these savings/profits on to us developers, by
>significantly dropping the price of the toolkit.  

A 33% drop in price isn't enough?

>Fair is fair.  How about it, Ron?  Will you take this to the suits? 
>Ready to announce a new, more widely affordable price structure?  

didn't we just do this?

>Me, it looks like I'll be sitting out this release, and spending the
>money on movies, pinball, and pizza.  Wake me in time for CW Studio 10
>when G5-specific optimizations are implemented....

We will continue to support Apple-based processors as they become 
available and as customer demand warrants.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <mwron-1B17A3.11270806082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
<snip> 
> There is basically nothing new with Java, but if you really want to 
> donate your money to Metrowerks  I'm sure we can sell you what you have 
> again.  
<snip>

So does that mean I can take the 8.3 Java stuff and just plop it into 
the 9.x release?

Or does it mean that I will need to keep two versions of CW around - 8.3 
for Java and 9.x for the rest?

Personally I'd rather have just the one development environment that I 
have become accustomed to. 

Sure it might cost me an extra $50US (for the same stuff that is in 8.3) 
but when I compare that aginst the messing about and lost time to have 
two versions it's a no brainer (at least for me).

I just want to get on with developing apps not spend my time bolting 
tools together.

Just my personal thoughts on the matter though....

respect....

Peter

In article 
<pteesonNOT-E69291.12404206082003@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
 Peter Teeson <pteesonNOT@ATrogers.com> wrote:

>In article <mwron-1B17A3.11270806082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
> MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
><snip> 
>> There is basically nothing new with Java, but if you really want to 
>> donate your money to Metrowerks  I'm sure we can sell you what you have 
>> again.  
><snip>
>
>So does that mean I can take the 8.3 Java stuff and just plop it into 
>the 9.x release?
>
>Or does it mean that I will need to keep two versions of CW around - 8.3 
>for Java and 9.x for the rest?

We'll see the last Beta didn't accept the Java tools but it wasn't final.

Your personal thoughts mean a lot and they are noted.  

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

> In article <BB5542D6.A897%bobito@abac.com>,
> "bobito@abac.com" <bobito@abac.com> wrote:
> 
>> Any word on whether Metrowerks has fixed the egregious bug in Codewarrior in
>> which one cannot view Global or local static variables in the Debugger pane
>> window?  (except with the pane set on 'auto' and then only on the specific
>> line the variable is referenced).
> 
> Basically this is not a Metrowerks bug, it is a limitation because of
> some things we have no control over.
> 
>> I can't believe that they have not fixed that for free.  Oh, wait, I can
>> believe it.
> 
> Actually CW 8.3 did fix it and it was free.  When the tides are right it
> works for me just fine... but I do know what you mean and for most
> people it still is funky at best.
> 
> I don't want to blame others we do need to find alternative workarounds
> but this really is not a simple thing to do for this OS.
> 
> Ron

Well, if it works for you there must be a way to make it work for other
people. Until that is true I don't know how you can say that 8.3 did fix it.

I guess the answer is "no"--with yet another pricey upgrade we will still
not have basic functionality that has been in every codewarrior until now.

I won't be paying any more money to Metrowerks until they get that fixed.

Bob

In article <mwron-3C529C.11295806082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> In article <060820030802063617%Forget@forget.com>,
>  Mikey <Forget@forget.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <BB55C7F5.B485%tom325@sbcglobal.net>, Tom Anderson
> ><tom325@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >This is a big release for me - mainly because of PowerPlant X. I've
> >been holding off from starting a new (shareware) project because I want
> >to use PPX, actually.  I don't have any trouble with a $200 upgrade,
> >even though it's a lot. So, congrats to Metro for what is looking like
> >a really big upgrade.
> >
> >However, the licensing thing is difficult. I have a main development
> >machine, like everyone, but I also have a bunch of other machines that
> >I test and debug on. Do I have to "disable" one machine in order to use
> >another?
> 
> Technically that was never legal,  the license changed about 4 years ago 
> to a single machine license.  You bring up a good point and i'll pass it 
> on,  can you please send me an e-mail that I can forward to the powers 
> that be.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ron

I am a small developer (ie: one person) I need to be able to install on 
my PB and a firewire drive which I move between several machines for 
testing and development. I need a single user license, not a single 
machine license.

I also will be skiping this release and moving over to Apples tools 
(reluctantly) unless this is changed.

- George Lawrence Storm

In article
<keencoyote-F3DF69.17380606082003@news.comcast.giganews.com>, George
Lawrence Storm <keencoyote@earthlink.net> wrote:

--------SNIPPED for brevity----------
> I am a small developer (ie: one person) I need to be able to install on 
> my PB and a firewire drive which I move between several machines for 
> testing and development. I need a single user license, not a single 
> machine license.
> 
> I also will be skiping this release and moving over to Apples tools 
> (reluctantly) unless this is changed.
> 
> - George Lawrence Storm

As another small developer (one person multiple Macs), I'm afraid I'll
have to add a "me too" here.

I do a lot of Driver (USB/FireWire/PCI)  and QuickTime codec
development and must be able to test and debug on different Macs with
differnt hardware configurations. Otherwise I cannot ensure the code I
deliver to my clients/customers is properly tested and then it becomes
a Support nightmare for me.

So if CW 9 "locks" to a single machine, I'll stick with CW 8.3 until it
dies under Panther and then be forced to "Switch" to Apple's tools.

And I'm a long time customer and have been upgrading my MetroWorks
CodeWarrior disks since  CW 4 - not CW Pro 4 , your 4th compiler
update.

Milton J. Aupperle
www.outcastsoft.com

In article 
<keencoyote-F3DF69.17380606082003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
 George Lawrence Storm <keencoyote@earthlink.net> wrote:


>I am a small developer (ie: one person) I need to be able to install on 
>my PB and a firewire drive which I move between several machines for 
>testing and development. I need a single user license, not a single 
>machine license.

We will be sure that everyone is treated fairly.  I think there are ways 
to work with developers to accomdate the one man shop with several 
computers.

>I also will be skiping this release and moving over to Apples tools 
>(reluctantly) unless this is changed.

Don't give up on us without seeing what we have.  Metrowerks has always 
done what is best.

The more feedback on this that we get the better it will be.  I'm sure 
many concerns are false but we want to anticipate them and have paths in 
place rather than react after  CW 9 is released.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <mwron-3C529C.11295806082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> >However, the licensing thing is difficult. I have a main development
> >machine, like everyone, but I also have a bunch of other machines that
> >I test and debug on. Do I have to "disable" one machine in order to use
> >another?
> 
> Technically that was never legal,  the license changed about 4 years ago 
> to a single machine license.  You bring up a good point and i'll pass it 
> on,  can you please send me an e-mail that I can forward to the powers 

I have to admit that I missed the portion of the PR that discussed this, 
but if what is written above is true, then that will definitely 
accelerate our migration to Xcode. I work for another small developer - 
we port games to the Mac, and I find myself having to debug on different 
Macs with different video cards all the time.

It would be a pretty big financial hit for me, if I understand things 
correctly. While CodeWarrior's compile speed is currently a big win, 
setting these Macs up for net compiling with Xcode may eliminate that 
advantage almost entirely.

I'm not sure what Metrowerks' stance is on G5 support - will that be 
something we have to pay for in the future, or will it come as part of a 
free 9.x update for CodeWarrior?

--
Brad Oliver
bradman@pobox.com.AM_SPAY

MW Ron  wrote:

>to get CW 9 for Mac out the door.   We could be setting waiting for 
>months or years for G5's and even then I doubt many people will target 
>them for years.   If it wasn't for FAT applications there wouldn't have 
>been PPC only targets for years after it came out. 

FUD alert! FUD alert! :)

My understanding is that using G5 friendly scheduling is perfectly OK on G4s.
You just need to stay away from G5 specific instructions.

In article <RajYa.416$7R.98@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
 bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:

>MW Ron  wrote:
>
>>to get CW 9 for Mac out the door.   We could be setting waiting for 
>>months or years for G5's and even then I doubt many people will target 
>>them for years.   If it wasn't for FAT applications there wouldn't have 
>>been PPC only targets for years after it came out. 
>
>FUD alert! FUD alert! :)
>
>My understanding is that using G5 friendly scheduling is perfectly OK on G4s.
>You just need to stay away from G5 specific instructions.

FUD alert! FUD alert! :)

I believe you  basically said exactly what I said.  So who is trying to 
create  fear uncertainty and doubt?

I Work for Metrowerks... Greg?  

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

MW Ron  wrote:

>
>In article <RajYa.416$7R.98@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
> bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>MW Ron  wrote:
>>
>>>to get CW 9 for Mac out the door.   We could be setting waiting for 
>>>months or years for G5's and even then I doubt many people will target 
>>>them for years.   If it wasn't for FAT applications there wouldn't have 
>>>been PPC only targets for years after it came out. 
>>
>>FUD alert! FUD alert! :)
>>
>>My understanding is that using G5 friendly scheduling is perfectly OK on G4s.
>>You just need to stay away from G5 specific instructions.
>
>FUD alert! FUD alert! :)
>
>I believe you  basically said exactly what I said.  So who is trying to 
>create  fear uncertainty and doubt?

I don't know. I do know you can download the very latest Apple Dev tools and
target the G5 today from any Mac OS X machine. The code can be run on any
machine too. No "waiting for months or years" is necessary. That was the 
phrase that I disagree with.

This is what I'm talking about: <http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2086.html>

>
-mtune=970 
This tells the compiler to tune code as optimally as it can for the G5. This flag can be safely used by itself on code that may run on processors other than the G5, because code compatibility is not changed. 
>

No FUD, nothing personal (or professional :). Just some plain facts.

Milton Aupperle <milton@SAPMMUSTDIEoutcastsoft.com.invalid> wrote in message news:<060820031928210697%milton@SAPMMUSTDIEoutcastsoft.com.invalid>...

> So if CW 9 "locks" to a single machine, I'll stick with CW 8.3 until it
> dies under Panther and then be forced to "Switch" to Apple's tools.

CW 8.3 works fine for me in Panther. Is there some problem for most
people to use it?

(Let's see, We had problems with wchar_t, missing prototypes for a
couple of functions and irritating warnings because some system header
had a struct foo {int a,int b,int c,}; with a comma after the last
member).

I can not reccomend Apples "X Code". On my 700MHz/384MB G3 iBook, just
running X Code and editing a file, after turning off indexing and code
completion, it felt ... unresponsive ... Migh be that they fix it for
the release version. Compared to a non-responsive editor I prefer ed.

Their "new" low level profiler "Shark" was very good though. (It might
have been around for some time, I did not notice it before).

Erik

In article <enmYa.455$P34.56@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
 bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:

>MW Ron  wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <RajYa.416$7R.98@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
>> bolsinga@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>MW Ron  wrote:
>>>
>>>>to get CW 9 for Mac out the door.   We could be setting waiting for 
>>>>months or years for G5's and even then I doubt many people will target 
>>>>them for years.   If it wasn't for FAT applications there wouldn't have 
>>>>been PPC only targets for years after it came out. 
>>>
>>>FUD alert! FUD alert! :)
>>>
>>>My understanding is that using G5 friendly scheduling is perfectly OK on 
>>>G4s.
>>>You just need to stay away from G5 specific instructions.
>>
>>FUD alert! FUD alert! :)
>>
>>I believe you  basically said exactly what I said.  So who is trying to 
>>create  fear uncertainty and doubt?
>
>I don't know. I do know you can download the very latest Apple Dev tools and
>target the G5 today from any Mac OS X machine. The code can be run on any
>machine too. No "waiting for months or years" is necessary. That was the 
>phrase that I disagree with.

Fair enough,   I even saw my First G5 commercial already it was very 
cool.   I was thinking it would be months or a year until there were 
enough to commercially target software for.

>This tells the compiler to tune code as optimally as it can for the G5. This 
>flag can be safely used by itself on code that may run on processors other 
>than the G5, because code compatibility is not changed. 

How many people use Altivec now?  There are some and those that need it 
need it, but the general Mac developer is not using it even now.  That 
is my point.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <bradman-E98259.18582606082003@news.west.cox.net>,
 Brad Oliver <bradman@pobox.com.AM_SPAY> wrote:

>
>I have to admit that I missed the portion of the PR that discussed this, 
>but if what is written above is true, then that will definitely 
>accelerate our migration to Xcode. I work for another small developer - 
>we port games to the Mac, and I find myself having to debug on different 
>Macs with different video cards all the time.

We will prepare an announcement that will clarify some items and ease 
the apprehension that I am seeing.  Metrowerks has always been fair with 
its customers.

>It would be a pretty big financial hit for me, if I understand things 
>correctly. While CodeWarrior's compile speed is currently a big win, 
>setting these Macs up for net compiling with Xcode may eliminate that 
>advantage almost entirely.
>
>I'm not sure what Metrowerks' stance is on G5 support - will that be 
>something we have to pay for in the future, or will it come as part of a 
>free 9.x update for CodeWarrior?

I don't know at this time,  If I give a guess one way and it should 
change then we'd be flamed.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <BB56C8A9.A8CB%bobito@abac.com>,
 "bobito@abac.com" <bobito@abac.com> wrote:

 re: global variables in the variables window

>Well, if it works for you there must be a way to make it work for other
>people. Until that is true I don't know how you can say that 8.3 did fix it.

No I said it did not work at all but we have it partially working with 
8.3 and OS X 10.2.x
 
We believe that we can get this working for CW 9 but I won't guarantee 
it,  this is not as simple as one may think, it involves Linkers and IDE 
teams as well as Apple's cooperation to resolve it.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <macdev-A449DC.12193307082003@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
 Miro Jurisic <macdev@meeroh.org> wrote:

> > While CodeWarrior's compile speed is currently a big win, 
> > setting these Macs up for net compiling with Xcode may eliminate that 
> > advantage almost entirely.
> 
> Xcode's net compile is a big win oly if you have so much to compile that the 
> network access time is negligible compared to the compile time. Most of the 
> time 
> when I recompile, I only changed one or two files, and in that case Xcode 
> will 
> not offer a significant speed improvement.

That's true. Conversely, if I'm only recompiling one or two files, I've 
found that gcc's slower performance isn't that bothersome to me since 
I'm on a dual-processor Mac (which brings things very close to even for 
me). It's mainly when I do full project recompiles that I start to go 
crazy with gcc.

--
Brad Oliver
bradman@pobox.com.AM_SPAY

in article mwron-3C529C.11295806082003@enews.newsguy.com, MW Ron at
mwron@metrowerks.com wrote on 8/6/03 8:29 AM:

>> However, the licensing thing is difficult. I have a main development
>> machine, like everyone, but I also have a bunch of other machines that
>> I test and debug on. Do I have to "disable" one machine in order to use
>> another?
> 
> Technically that was never legal,  the license changed about 4 years ago
> to a single machine license.  You bring up a good point and i'll pass it
> on,  can you please send me an e-mail that I can forward to the powers
> that be.

Another "me too" on this one.  I'm a small development shop.  I have a main
development machine.  When I travel, I hack on code on my PowerBook.  I have
a number of other machines that I test/debug on with differing hardware
configurations/OS versions.

I have upgraded to each successive version of CodeWarrior in the past, and I
have a license for the Windows hosted tools as well (even though its just me
- single user).

PowerPlant X is not a big draw as I have my own C++ framework code, so it
will be general compiler/IDE improvements and better Cocoa/Objective C
support that make CW9 attractive.  If the licensing is retrograde, then I
may sit this one out as, from the PR, it does not look like a huge leap
forward.

Cheers
-Mark

In article <050820031439310655%ercole@olivario.org>,
 Ercole Olivario <ercole@olivario.org> wrote:

>In article <avi-BC4D7C.13270405082003@news-50.giganews.com>, Avi
>Drissman <avi@drissman.com> wrote:
>
>> > The product will run in evaluation mode until you apply a permanent 
>> > license 
>> > key for the targets you need.
>> 
>> Man. As much as it wouldn't affect me (I've always paid and never 
>> shared), I still don't like activation.
>> 
>> Avi
>
>But without nice, solid license key protection mechanisms in place,
>Metrowerks profits have certainly suffered due to rampant piracy. 

An interesting statement, but one I find hard to believe. What evidence 
is there for this?

Personally, I would have guessed that the biggest hits were:
- Apple including usable free tools with MacOS X
- Metrowerks upgrades being less crucial over time. This is primarily 
because C/C++ has matured, but may also be because of ongoing problems 
(such as the debugger problems mentioned here; not MW's fault, but it 
makes the product harder to use and upgrade less compelling)

Compilers aren't an obvious thing to pirate, at least not compared to 
music, games, etc.. Even compared to word processors, spreadsheets and 
the like. I would guess that the vast majority of developers trying to 
sell software would stay legal. Both because who understand better the 
importance of buying software and because it's easy to tell what 
compiler generated a program.

If so, the main problem would be occasional hobbyists. Some of them may 
be opportunistic, but if you make CW harder to get they'll just use gnu 
C and Apple's tools and what have you gained?

Ease of access (lack of copy protection) works both ways. More folks 
will see the product and some might try it and buy it while others will 
buy only if they must. But there's no "must" here when there's a free 
alternative.

I fear a death spiral if Metrowerks adds any copy protection (beyond the 
usual benign serial # that doesn't try to check for other copies 
running). It will make CodeWarrior even less appealing compared to 
Apple's tools.

I really wish you luck. It's painful to see a good company struggling. 
What could be more important than development tools? Yet trying to make 
money in that business seems quite difficult.

-- Russell

P.S. I upgraded faithfully through CW 6, then stopped. The one C/C++ 
program I maintain uses 3rd party drivers that still only run on MacOS 
9. I mostly program in Python these days and am very relieved not to 
have to do more with C++ -- yecch!

In article <bh1ai7$270g$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
 "Russell E. Owen" <no@spam.invalid> wrote:


>>But without nice, solid license key protection mechanisms in place,
>>Metrowerks profits have certainly suffered due to rampant piracy. 
>
>An interesting statement, but one I find hard to believe. What evidence 
>is there for this?

Metrowerks never said that.

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <mwron-DF8D74.11125609082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

>In article <bh1ai7$270g$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
> "Russell E. Owen" <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>>But without nice, solid license key protection mechanisms in place,
>>>Metrowerks profits have certainly suffered due to rampant piracy. 
>>
>>An interesting statement, but one I find hard to believe. What evidence 
>>is there for this?
>
>Metrowerks never said that.

Let me expand on this a bit.  The reason for this was not to stop piracy 
but to allow us to keep costs down by developing the technologys people 
need and not having to share the costs to everyone.  

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <mwron-E7ABB0.19430706082003@enews.newsguy.com>, MW Ron
<mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> We will be sure that everyone is treated fairly.  I think there are ways 
> to work with developers to accomdate the one man shop with several 
> computers.
> 
> >I also will be skiping this release and moving over to Apples tools 
> >(reluctantly) unless this is changed.
> 
> Don't give up on us without seeing what we have.  Metrowerks has always 
> done what is best.
> 
> The more feedback on this that we get the better it will be.  I'm sure 
> many concerns are false but we want to anticipate them and have paths in 
> place rather than react after  CW 9 is released.

I'm another one-man shop with several computers. One is the main
development machine, but I sometimes do use a laptop, and sometimes I
have needed to install on a test machine for debugging.


(Other feedback: I really don't want to have to have two IDEs in order
to do Java development. That's so Windows.

-- 
David Dunham    A Sharp    david@SPAM_B_GONE.a-sharp.com
http://www.pensee.com/dunham/
    "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want."
    "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams

In article <mwron-1B17A3.11270806082003@enews.newsguy.com>, MW Ron
<mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> We could be setting waiting for 
> months or years for G5's and even then I doubt many people will target 
> them for years.

Targetting G5 is not much harder than targetting G4.  Very few people
will develop G5-specific applications.  However, some performance
hot-spots can definitely benefit from G5 optimization just as some can
benefit from Altivec optimization, and it's almost as easy to add some
G5-specific code that gets called at runtime as it is to add some
Altivec-specific code that gets called at runtime.

The problem is that it doesn't sound like CodeWarrior 9 will generate
this G5-specific code.  With the December 2002 release of the Mac OS X
Developer Tools and the GCC 3.3 update from Apple, I can generate that
G5-specific code today.

  -- Chris

-- 
Chris Hanson, bDistributed.com, Inc.  |  Email: cmh@bDistributed.com
Custom Application Development        |  Phone: +1-847-372-3955
http://bdistributed.com/              |  Fax:   +1-847-589-3738
http://bdistributed.com/Articles/     |  Personal Email: cmh@mac.com

In article <mwron-307390.11190007082003@enews.newsguy.com>, MW Ron
<mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

> How many people use Altivec now?  There are some and those that need it 
> need it, but the general Mac developer is not using it even now.  That 
> is my point.

That depends what market you're talking about.

I would guess that the general video, audio, or game developer *is*
using Altivec right now, and will be optimizing for G5 shortly (if
profiling determines it will buy them anything).

  -- Chris

-- 
Chris Hanson, bDistributed.com, Inc.  |  Email: cmh@bDistributed.com
Custom Application Development        |  Phone: +1-847-372-3955
http://bdistributed.com/              |  Fax:   +1-847-589-3738
http://bdistributed.com/Articles/     |  Personal Email: cmh@mac.com

In article <bh1ai7$270g$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
 "Russell E. Owen" <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> 
> Personally, I would have guessed that the biggest hits were:
> - Apple including usable free tools with MacOS X
> - Metrowerks upgrades being less crucial over time. This is primarily 
> because C/C++ has matured, but may also be because of ongoing problems 
> (such as the debugger problems mentioned here; not MW's fault, but it 
> makes the product harder to use and upgrade less compelling)
> 

I'm considering not upgrading to 9. If I didn't have to support 9 & 
build CFM apps, I wouldn't use CW at all - I find Apple's tools a lot 
more usable. I've had more trouble with Constructor than any other tool 
I've used.

-- 
Mike Cohen - mike3k <at> onepost <dot> net
Personal: http://www.mc-development.com/
Mac News: http://www.macmegasite.com/

In article <mwron-ABA4A5.11523509082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
 MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:

>In article <mwron-DF8D74.11125609082003@enews.newsguy.com>,
> MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <bh1ai7$270g$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
>> "Russell E. Owen" <no@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But without nice, solid license key protection mechanisms in place,
>>>>Metrowerks profits have certainly suffered due to rampant piracy. 
>>>
>>>An interesting statement, but one I find hard to believe. What evidence 
>>>is there for this?
>>
>>Metrowerks never said that.
>
>Let me expand on this a bit.  The reason for this was not to stop piracy 
>but to allow us to keep costs down by developing the technologys people 
>need and not having to share the costs to everyone.  

Thank you for elaborating. I knew the person I quoted was not a 
Metrowerks employee. It was a statement I felt unlikely to be true and I 
am glad to hear that Metrowerks is not using such thinking to justify 
their authorization.

As far as technology needs...I'm hoping someday the IDE will be expanded 
to support more languages including scripting languages. I'd be happy to 
pay for a really good Python IDE (one that included your excellent 
editor, a class browser and the ability to run Tkinter or wxPython 
scripts). Dunno what you could charge for such a thing since it would 
only be the IDE you were selling, not the language(s). Sigh. just 
think...it could even interface to gnu C except I can't imagine that 
fitting your business model.

I hope the authorization mechanism isn't too intrusive. If folks start 
having authorization hassles, I think it's going to hit your business 
very hard (since it'll really emphasize the issue of why pay for 
Metrowerks CodeWarrior instead of using the free alternatives).

As a programmer, I'm always happy to see a good company figure out some 
way to get folks to pay for software. I wish you luck.

I'm hoping someday to have a good reason to upgrade myself -- I'm still 
back at 6, but I don't do much C/C++ anymore and the one program I 
maintain only runs on Classic (a camera control program that uses 3rd 
party drivers that have not yet been rewritten for MacOS X).

-- Russell

MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote in message news:<mwron-D55A23.11221507082003@enews.newsguy.com>...
> We will prepare an announcement that will clarify some items and ease 
> the apprehension that I am seeing.  Metrowerks has always been fair with 
> its customers.

Could you point out where to read this announcement? Is it available
yet? I haven't seen any new information regarding multi-machine
installations that the facts we already know.
At the moment our distributor tells me I can only have *one*
installation per machine. In this case it's bye, bye, Metrowerks...

/Anders

In article <40468abe.0308151353.3a600007@posting.google.com>,
 ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:

>MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote in message 
>news:<mwron-D55A23.11221507082003@enews.newsguy.com>...
>> We will prepare an announcement that will clarify some items and ease 
>> the apprehension that I am seeing.  Metrowerks has always been fair with 
>> its customers.
>
>Could you point out where to read this announcement? Is it available
>yet? I haven't seen any new information regarding multi-machine
>installations that the facts we already know.

I posted it here, it is on the same web page,  if you don't see the new 
text do a refresh you may have the old text cached.

http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Macintosh/Activation.htm

>At the moment our distributor tells me I can only have *one*
>installation per machine. In this case it's bye, bye, Metrowerks...

That is technically the way it has been for at least 4 years, but we 
were not enforcing it.  With this model you will have to make an aware 
decision that you are copying the license.   We aren't trying to get 
money from honest people that have a laptop, but do want to stop people 
from "loaning" their copy of CodeWarrior to a friend. 

This web licensing process is being introduced to be more flexible in 
the manner in which we license CodeWarrior and offer better value to our 
customers. The activation process does not lock the licensing to a host 
ID, disk drive ID, dongle, Mac address or in any way restrict use of the 
permanent license file to a specific computer. The activation process 
allows Metrowerks the opportunity to offer price alternatives to 
optional components within the CodeWarrior Development Studio and ensure 
product registrations so we can serve you more efficiently.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

<angry sniparama> 

> That is technically the way it has been for at least 4 years, but we 
> were not enforcing it.  With this model you will have to make an aware 
> decision that you are copying the license.   We aren't trying to get 
> money from honest people that have a laptop, but do want to stop people 
> from "loaning" their copy of CodeWarrior to a friend. 
> 

2c:

Hey Ron

As requested, I sent in an email about licensing some time ago. I don't
know if policy changed since, or what the deal is, but it seems okay to
me. 

I think s/w policy should be tight, because I believe in the rights of
the creators, owners, whatever, and that you got to pay to play. I
don't buy into the "copying to evaluate" nonsense -- hey let me
evaluate your Ferrari for the month, guy! It's too bad it's an
expensive upgrade, but what can you do? It's worth it.

But I gotta tell you, it looks like the powers-that-be sorta blew the
initial press release. I know I'm a _very_ delicate programmer, but
man-o! what a reaction from the public. We're way more sensitive than,
say, Quarkies or Final Cutters.

Did the bosses just go  "uh... you handle the feedback, Ron..."  and
then step out for lunch? Yikes!  My bosses do that to me all the time.
I gotta hand it to you, dude, you handle the shitstorm with grace.

I'm sure once everyone gets their copy, they'll be happy, but naturally
they'll complain a lot. That seems to be the norm. Personally I've had
little trouble with any release, and when I did I worked around it or
you guys fixed it. Ya change the code, ya change the project settings,
big deal.  

Don't take it to heart. You're a good bunch of guys and it shows in the
product and support.

Mike

In article <170820030838516196%Forget@forget.com>,
 Mikey <Forget@forget.com> wrote:

><angry sniparama> 
>
>> That is technically the way it has been for at least 4 years, but we 
>> were not enforcing it.  With this model you will have to make an aware 
>> decision that you are copying the license.   We aren't trying to get 
>> money from honest people that have a laptop, but do want to stop people 
>> from "loaning" their copy of CodeWarrior to a friend. 
>> 
>
>2c:
>
>Hey Ron
>
>As requested, I sent in an email about licensing some time ago. I don't
>know if policy changed since, or what the deal is, but it seems okay to
>me. 

I think we have improved the activation model.

>I think s/w policy should be tight, because I believe in the rights of
>the creators, owners, whatever, and that you got to pay to play. I
>don't buy into the "copying to evaluate" nonsense -- hey let me
>evaluate your Ferrari for the month, guy! It's too bad it's an
>expensive upgrade, but what can you do? It's worth it.
>
>But I gotta tell you, it looks like the powers-that-be sorta blew the
>initial press release. I know I'm a _very_ delicate programmer, but
>man-o! what a reaction from the public. We're way more sensitive than,
>say, Quarkies or Final Cutters.

I don't think that they considered the need for more than one 
computer/system for a single developer.  But I think Metrowerks changed 
the policy and reacted very quickly.  I'm quite pleased with how we 
handled this.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

>  ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:
> >At the moment our distributor tells me I can only have *one*
> >installation per machine. In this case it's bye, bye, Metrowerks...

MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
> That is technically the way it has been for at least 4 years, but we 
> were not enforcing it.  With this model you will have to make an aware 
> decision that you are copying the license.   We aren't trying to get 
> money from honest people that have a laptop, but do want to stop people 
> from "loaning" their copy of CodeWarrior to a friend. 

I have no problem with this. But let me quote from CW6 license
agreement:

"...This License allows you to use each host-platform version of the
Software on a single computer corresponding to that host-platform
version, provided that you are the only individual using the Software.
 You may also use a copy of the Software on a home or portable
computer for each host-platform, as long as that extra copy is never
running at the same time the Software is running on the primary
computer for each host-platform on which you use the Software.  You
may make one additional copy of the Software in the form in which it
is provided to you, only for backup purposes.  You must reproduce on
all copies you make of the Software the Metrowerks copyright notice
and any other proprietary legends that are on the original copy of the
Software.
..."

So, let me see if I got this right: Besides the install on my primary
machine, a second install on my home computer or portable is allowed.
A third install/copy for backup purposes is allowed.
Now, the term "portable" and when I actually choose to use my backup
can be interpretated rather generously so I don't violate the license.
Ok?

Will the new license change in any of these aspects?

Perhaps I've missed something, but how will the upcoming activation
handle multiple OS installs on the same machine?

MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> also wrote:
> This web licensing process is being introduced to be more flexible in 
> the manner in which we license CodeWarrior and offer better value to our 
> customers. The activation process does not lock the licensing to a host 
> ID, disk drive ID, dongle, Mac address or in any way restrict use of the 
> permanent license file to a specific computer. The activation process 
> allows Metrowerks the opportunity to offer price alternatives to 
> optional components within the CodeWarrior Development Studio and ensure 
> product registrations so we can serve you more efficiently.

Perhaps you should inform your dealers/distributors about this. At the
moment you don't speak the same langage. My distributor tells me the
product *is* locked to a single machine/hardware and that the reason
behind this is software piracy. Nothing's mentioned about increased
flexibility or giving better value to your customers.

Regards,
/Anders

ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:
> Perhaps you should inform your dealers/distributors about this. At the
> moment you don't speak the same langage. My distributor tells me the
> product *is* locked to a single machine/hardware and that the reason
> behind this is software piracy. Nothing's mentioned about increased
> flexibility or giving better value to your customers.

Got a mail from our distributor here in Scandinavia.
She just spoke to Metrowerks about the content in
<http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Macintosh/Activation.htm>
and was told that the information is wrong!
It is a *single computer* install, nothing else.

So, Ron, who should we listen to?

/Anders

In article <40468abe.0308250058.10d9f664@posting.google.com>,
 ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:

>>  ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:
>> >At the moment our distributor tells me I can only have *one*
>> >installation per machine. In this case it's bye, bye, Metrowerks...
>
>MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
>> That is technically the way it has been for at least 4 years, but we 
>> were not enforcing it.  With this model you will have to make an aware 
>> decision that you are copying the license.   We aren't trying to get 
>> money from honest people that have a laptop, but do want to stop people 
>> from "loaning" their copy of CodeWarrior to a friend. 
>
>I have no problem with this. But let me quote from CW6 license
>agreement:
>
>"...This License allows you to use each host-platform version of the
>Software on a single computer corresponding to that host-platform
>version, provided that you are the only individual using the Software.
> You may also use a copy of the Software on a home or portable
>computer for each host-platform, as long as that extra copy is never
>running at the same time the Software is running on the primary
>computer for each host-platform on which you use the Software.  You
>may make one additional copy of the Software in the form in which it
>is provided to you, only for backup purposes.  You must reproduce on
>all copies you make of the Software the Metrowerks copyright notice
>and any other proprietary legends that are on the original copy of the
>Software.
>..."

They changed the license in 99  but I  see it wasn't until CW Pro 7, 
that they changed it for Desktop tools, for tht and CW 8 the license says

 This License allows you to use each host-platform version of the 
Software on a single computer corresponding to that host-platform 
version, provided that you are the only individual using the Software. 
You may make one additional copy of the Software in the form in which it 
is provided to you, only for backup purposes provided you reproduce on 
all copies you make of the Software the Metrowerks copyright notices and 
any other proprietary legends that are on the original copy of the 
Software. 

>So, let me see if I got this right: Besides the install on my primary
>machine, a second install on my home computer or portable is allowed.

No

>A third install/copy for backup purposes is allowed.

No

>Now, the term "portable" and when I actually choose to use my backup
>can be interpretated rather generously so I don't violate the license.
>Ok?

No  actually it is quite specific

>Will the new license change in any of these aspects?

Yes, it did two years ago not four, my bad. 

>Perhaps I've missed something, but how will the upcoming activation
>handle multiple OS installs on the same machine?

Put it in a non boot volume that is what I do.

But for second machines it will not "install"  you as the end user will 
have to knowingly install on one system and copy the license.  We are 
going to leave it to you to use your own judgement whether this is 
correct usage for you.  Basically we are trusting our customers.

>MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> also wrote:
>> This web licensing process is being introduced to be more flexible in 
>> the manner in which we license CodeWarrior and offer better value to our 
>> customers. The activation process does not lock the licensing to a host 
>> ID, disk drive ID, dongle, Mac address or in any way restrict use of the 
>> permanent license file to a specific computer. The activation process 
>> allows Metrowerks the opportunity to offer price alternatives to 
>> optional components within the CodeWarrior Development Studio and ensure 
>> product registrations so we can serve you more efficiently.
>
>Perhaps you should inform your dealers/distributors about this. At the
>moment you don't speak the same langage. My distributor tells me the
>product *is* locked to a single machine/hardware and that the reason
>behind this is software piracy. Nothing's mentioned about increased
>flexibility or giving better value to your customers.

I believe we made it known, but I'll check.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
> They changed the license in 99  but I  see it wasn't until CW Pro 7, 
> that they changed it for Desktop tools, for tht and CW 8 the license says
>...

Can I view the license for CW7 or CW8 without actually starting the
installer?

> >Perhaps I've missed something, but how will the upcoming activation
> >handle multiple OS installs on the same machine?
> 
> Put it in a non boot volume that is what I do.

You avoided answering my question, so I'll rephrase. How will CW9 work
when switching OS and we don't want to repartition our disks just to
get a non-boot CW-volume?

Assume I follow your recommendation and install CW on a non-boot,
removable Firewire disk. Will I then violate the license as soon as I
move the disk to another machine and start CW?

> But for second machines it will not "install"  you as the end user will 
> have to knowingly install on one system and copy the license.

Since English is not my native language, I really have to ask in order
to understand this properly.
You say that CW can't be installed on second machine, but the original
installation *can* be copied?
Can I remove a installation from a machine and reinstall (not copy) CW
on a new G5 when I buy it later on? What steps are needed in order to
make the license "installable" again? How long will I have to wait for
Metrowerks to handle my permanent switch to new hardware?

Ron, I hope I won't bother you with more questions...
However, I think Metrowerks need to think again about the licensing
issue. There are IMHO too many unanswered questions.
MW states on the web that "...is being introduced to be more flexible
in the manner in which we license CodeWarrior and offer better value
to our customers." I have closely followed this discussion and frankly
I can't see how MW bring better value to us by introducing this. Given
the fact my distributor and MW give different answers, I'd rather say
the opposite.

/Anders

In article <40468abe.0308251223.eedb1a5@posting.google.com>,
 ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:

>MW Ron <mwron@metrowerks.com> wrote:
>> They changed the license in 99  but I  see it wasn't until CW Pro 7, 
>> that they changed it for Desktop tools, for tht and CW 8 the license says
>>...
>
>Can I view the license for CW7 or CW8 without actually starting the
>installer?

Yes open the release notes, It is likely in the QuickStart too.
>
>> >Perhaps I've missed something, but how will the upcoming activation
>> >handle multiple OS installs on the same machine?
>> 
>> Put it in a non boot volume that is what I do.
>
>You avoided answering my question, so I'll rephrase. How will CW9 work
>when switching OS and we don't want to repartition our disks just to
>get a non-boot CW-volume?

I wasn't avoiding it I was thinking you meant you had an external drive 
and booted to that for different OS versions.    CW 9 will not be tied 
to any OS or any Machine or anything like that.  You will get one 
activation code it works for one copy of CodeWarrior.  

>Assume I follow your recommendation and install CW on a non-boot,
>removable Firewire disk. Will I then violate the license as soon as I
>move the disk to another machine and start CW?

We have left this to your best judgement.  If you are doing this so you 
can take your copy of CodeWarrior Home so you can freelance at home, I'd 
say that was wrong.  If you were doing this so you could take your copy 
home so you could work at home,  I'd say that was withing the spirit of 
the licesnes.  Rather than Metrowerks deciding on a case by case basis 
we felt that we'd leave it to the judgement of the end user.  The only 
difference is now you'll have to knowingly and deliberately make the 
copy.

>
>> But for second machines it will not "install"  you as the end user will 
>> have to knowingly install on one system and copy the license.
>
>Since English is not my native language, I really have to ask in order
>to understand this properly.
>You say that CW can't be installed on second machine, but the original
>installation *can* be copied?

Right

>Can I remove a installation from a machine and reinstall (not copy) CW
>on a new G5 when I buy it later on? What steps are needed in order to
>make the license "installable" again? How long will I have to wait for
>Metrowerks to handle my permanent switch to new hardware?

Copy your license.dat file and save it

>Ron, I hope I won't bother you with more questions...
>However, I think Metrowerks need to think again about the licensing
>issue. There are IMHO too many unanswered questions.

I don't think so, you are just making too many hypthetical questions :)

Seriously, this puts the burden of being honest on you the user, we feel 
you are the best to decide. 

>MW states on the web that "...is being introduced to be more flexible
>in the manner in which we license CodeWarrior and offer better value
>to our customers." I have closely followed this discussion and frankly
>I can't see how MW bring better value to us by introducing this. Given
>the fact my distributor and MW give different answers, I'd rather say
>the opposite.

Write to me and let me know who your distributer is and I'll clear it up.

Bottom line is you can have one ativation key per license. If you want 
the software loaded on more than one system you have to deliberately 
make a copy.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <40468abe.0308250458.3bb4ec5a@posting.google.com>,
 ulfis@macula.se (Anders Ulfheden) wrote:

> So, Ron, who should we listen to?


Is this a trick question? :-)

MW Ron wrote:

>> You say that CW can't be installed on second machine, but the original
>> installation *can* be copied?
> 
> Right
> 
>> Can I remove a installation from a machine and reinstall (not copy) CW
>> on a new G5 when I buy it later on? What steps are needed in order to
>> make the license "installable" again? How long will I have to wait for
>> Metrowerks to handle my permanent switch to new hardware?
> 
> Copy your license.dat file and save it

This is getting more cryptic with every further reply, but since it's an
important question (to me), I really need to know... after all, time is
running up for the introduction offer.

So this is what I *think* after reading all questions and replies:

When I install CW9 I need to contact Metrowerks, transmit some code, get
some code back, and this somehow results in a file called "license.dat" on
my harddisk. I can backup this license.dat file.

Now - if my computer explodes and I buy a complete new machine, then I can
"somehow" get CW to work by using the saved license.dat file *without* any
contact to Metroworks.

First question: Is this correct?

Second question: Since you said that we can't *install* a second time, but
*copy* - does this mean that license.dat won't work with a clean install
from the original CD?

In other words - in order to sleep safe, do I need to backup the entire
*installed* CW (probably immediately *after* being installed and including
license.dat) in order to have the chance to "install" it without Metrowerks'
interference on the new computer when the old one exploded? Is this correct?

Third question: If question2 is "yes", how difficult is it to locate all
files that really belong to CW - in theory, the files may be spread around
zillion places, and the task to backup every single bit and re-place it on a
new computer may be non-trivial.

In article <BB70E591.30BF2%noreply@hotmail.com>,
 "M." <noreply@hotmail.com> wrote:

>MW Ron wrote:
>
>>> You say that CW can't be installed on second machine, but the original
>>> installation *can* be copied?
>> 
>> Right
>> 
>>> Can I remove a installation from a machine and reinstall (not copy) CW
>>> on a new G5 when I buy it later on? What steps are needed in order to
>>> make the license "installable" again? How long will I have to wait for
>>> Metrowerks to handle my permanent switch to new hardware?
>> 
>> Copy your license.dat file and save it
>
>This is getting more cryptic with every further reply, but since it's an
>important question (to me), I really need to know... after all, time is
>running up for the introduction offer.
>
>So this is what I *think* after reading all questions and replies:
>
>When I install CW9 I need to contact Metrowerks, transmit some code, get
>some code back, and this somehow results in a file called "license.dat" on
>my harddisk. I can backup this license.dat file.

Basically yes

>Now - if my computer explodes and I buy a complete new machine, then I can
>"somehow" get CW to work by using the saved license.dat file *without* any
>contact to Metroworks.

Yes

>First question: Is this correct?

Basically yes.


>Second question: Since you said that we can't *install* a second time, but
>*copy* - does this mean that license.dat won't work with a clean install
>from the original CD?

it means after 15 days it will ask for your activation code if you don't 
have it will shut down.
>
>In other words - in order to sleep safe, do I need to backup the entire
>*installed* CW (probably immediately *after* being installed and including
>license.dat) in order to have the chance to "install" it without Metrowerks'
>interference on the new computer when the old one exploded? Is this correct?

No  only the license.dat file
>
>Third question: If question2 is "yes", how difficult is it to locate all
>files that really belong to CW - in theory, the files may be spread around
>zillion places, and the task to backup every single bit and re-place it on a
>new computer may be non-trivial.

Just the license.dat file.

Ron

-- 
         CodeWarrior Development Studio for Macintosh v9
Enhance Your Productivity and Shorten your Development Cycles
                 <http://store.metrowerks.com/> 
        Sales and Support 512-996-5300   800-377-5416     
Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

In article <BB70E591.30BF2%noreply@hotmail.com>,
 "M." <noreply@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When I install CW9 I need to contact Metrowerks, transmit some code, get
> some code back, and this somehow results in a file called "license.dat" on
> my harddisk. I can backup this license.dat file.

Correct.  It's just a text file.


> Now - if my computer explodes and I buy a complete new machine, then I can
> "somehow" get CW to work by using the saved license.dat file *without* any
> contact to Metroworks.
> 
> First question: Is this correct?

Correct.


> Second question: Since you said that we can't *install* a second time, but
> *copy* - does this mean that license.dat won't work with a clean install
> from the original CD?

There is no longer an "installer" per-se for the tools.  It's just a 
drag install off the CD.  The license.dat file that comes on the CD is 
limited, so when you overwrite it with your full license.dat, everything 
is unlocked.


> In other words - in order to sleep safe, do I need to backup the entire
> *installed* CW (probably immediately *after* being installed and including
> license.dat) in order to have the chance to "install" it without Metrowerks'
> interference on the new computer when the old one exploded? Is this correct?

You really just need to backup the license.dat file.  Everything else 
comes on the CD which you can reinstall from at any time.


> Third question: If question2 is "yes", how difficult is it to locate all
> files that really belong to CW - in theory, the files may be spread around
> zillion places, and the task to backup every single bit and re-place it on a
> new computer may be non-trivial.

They're all in one big folder that you drag off the CD.  The license.dat 
file lives inside there, just as it always has since Pro 5.

Josef W. Wankerl wrote:

> There is no longer an "installer" per-se for the tools.  It's just a
> drag install off the CD.  The license.dat file that comes on the CD is
> limited, so when you overwrite it with your full license.dat, everything
> is unlocked.

Thank you Josef (and MW Ron) for your quick replies. This is good news and
the method you are using is really fair.

It was just a bit unlucky to use the phrase "activation" without immediate
explanation, because this word does give the impression that it is some kind
of virtual dongle or interlock technology.

It once happened to me that I suddenly needed to dig out an 8 year old
program to do a slight modification to an old file - the program itself was
out of fashion and out of distribution for many years, and there is no trace
of the company that once coded it... if there would have been a "virtual
dongle" then I'd be lost.

I do hope that your company lasts forever, but... well times are sometimes
rough, and you'll never know...

This is why I strictly avoid this technology, even if it means that I need
to stop using a program.

I'll buy the update this week :-)