(( Right Click Properties Version infomation

[GraphiX2003]

Hiya all, im a new member of the board, im not in anyway a new user, been using autoplay now for many years, were a designing company that designs alot of multimedia for ebooks and also presentations, but im quiet angry we've paid all this money, for this program, and if you right click the .exe file it says The name and build of the program used to create our hard work!!! and a bleeding url address so they can go look themselves, this comment and infomation is ruining our company products because our clients are basically seing how we design our products, and we could lose major money, i think this is really un-fair of indigorose to do this, as it's cripleing our buisiness, is there any way to EDIT or remove the Version infomation, and the url link? and why cant we edit or leave this out totally ? we are losing business because of this,

Steve,
Chairman of ServerSoft Ebooks Ltd,

[RobbyH]

Re: (( Right Click Properties Version infomation

What are you talking about Graphix2003?
I've never heard of this right click menu?

[Corey]

Re: (( Right Click Properties Version infomation

Hmmm.. That's odd. You are now chairman of your company, yet you said in your earlier post that you were about to lose your job because of our software... Hmmmm....

Hmmmm....

That aside, I can assure you this issue is under consideration though... Posting over and over again with a variety of plangent tales will not make the issue any "more" under consideration than it already is but we appreciate your zeal.

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software

[kpsmith]

Re: (( Right Click Properties Version infomation

Although I too would prefer the property information not be included in the .exe, I'd have to say I don't see it as an earth shattering problem.

I can take just about any CD created with an authoring tool and figure out what the program was that created it.

That doesn't make me run out and buy the authoring tool and stop buying the end product.

What a client or customer are really paying for is the time and knowledge invested into building the product.

Most clients simply do not have the time, expertise, or staff to create the product themselves.

If they choose to invest into their own in house development there really is no way to stop them from making that decision.

[Protocol]

Re: Right Click Properties Version infomation

Hey there Graphix...

As a fellow multimedia designer and AMS user, I can definately see your concerns...I was surprised to read what you said about Multi Media Builder so I checked it out. After fooling around with it all day today, I have to agree with what both you and the Indigo crew have to say. Here's the run-down on MMB vs. AMS:

MMB does, indeed make single-file executables...AMS, please take this as a cue. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

The info that most developers are concerned with: info displayed all around the .exe file (right-click, runtime info seems to be present on MMB too, and although it may be possible to edit all of this info, I haven't been able to locate the remaining fields such as the one that displays which software was used to compile the .exe - perhaps in the final liscenced version.

MMB does have a super-low price of $55.00 for the full version...BUT...MMB seems to be geared towards mid-range developers who only want to add image and media files to a CD-ROM, whereas AMS allows you to take control of the user's entire system. Something which I value.

To put that in perspective, in AMS, you can pretty much develop everything that MMB can for CD-ROMs, plus you can develop pseudo-software applications like installers and updaters (sorry Indigo...it is possible in AMS), which MMB doesn't really focus on. MMB is great for quick DVD-like menus. AMS is great for just about anything.

MMB has virtually no Flash support (newest version 4.8). Although I'm not much of a flash-guy, I do like the idea of being able to incorporate complex media into my projects.

I won't go too much into depth as to all the subtle differences, but I will say that AMS was much more solid during design and after compilation. Little things that make the design process transparent like: the quick-key command for undo in MMB: "ALT-Backspace" (who made that call)??? In fact, many of the things we take for granted in AMS was pretty weakly coded in MMB. Ever notice in AMS that the menus for each function remember the sub-menu you last modified and go there when you return to edit that function? That's solid coding, and it has saved me countless hours so far.

AMS just seemd to make more sense. It felt almost as if MMB was an updated freeware program that's testing the waters of being a commercial product. Although they did, in fact have some really cool features, those features seemed somehow glitchy.

The MMB tutorial, help files and community were all for the dogs. The support is spread all over the place and is difficult to locate. I actually had to do a google search to find out how to change the icon!!! One of the biggest factors in me choosing AMS (even though I wasn't aware of MMB at the time) was the tech support. Corey, Tigg, Derek, Worm and like 30 other major-posters to this forum often reply to any odd question within 2 hours. Wouldn't it be great if the entire web worked this way? AMS may need to work on their help files just a bit more, but at least they have at least one help file for just about any question. You should see MMB's help section. Type in any important key word like "icon", "mp3" or "control" and it comes back with the next letter in the alphabet (we all know this one...type in "icon" and get a help file called "Insert bitmap image" because there's only 3 help files in the "I" section of the list - that always frustrates me).

The moral of the story: AMS has better support, and is in my opinion a better product, but really needs to adhere to some serious requests like the .exe being a single embedded file with our own company's info and Icon (not just the autorun icon). It would be very frustrating if every windows application had:

"Made with Microsoft Visual Bsic version #, available here: "URL" for the low cost of only $$$$!!! Click here to make your own product and save money by not hiring the guy or gal that made this one! It's easy and everyone can do it! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] )"

written all over the .exe . Afterall, every AMS user (assuming that they aren't living in the templates) is creating not only the design of the application, but the application itself...(that is: the purpose of the application).

MMB may be cheap but it appears that the product comes out that way (unless you're fooled by all the bells and whistles like I was for the first 10 minutes). And if you reeaallly need some of those bells and whistles, it would be far more processor-friendly to do it in flash and imbed it into AMS.

I know that this is going to come up in topic again, so I decided to say what some of us are wondering..."How easy would it be for AMS to adjust it's program to fit the population's genuine concerns?"

I would say, if it's easy to make one .exe file then do it and make yourself stand out as the best. Ironically, I purchased a screensaver program last week for that very reason! I had hunted the net for 2 months trying various demos from different companies. I had created the screensaver in Swish (a Flash-builder...great program by the way) and I only wanted to have the screensaver program install the flash file as a .scr file (screensaver file). The reason I chose "Flash Screensaver Builder Pro" from Xemico: It had an install that was a small pop-up with my icon, and 4 buttons: "Preview", "Install", "Uninstall" and "Cancel"!!! All I had to do was have AMS fire the .exe which has my logo on it!!!

All of the other programs had either fullscreen odd-colored installs, or had their company's info written all over the install process and even the .exe!! After contacting the individual companies, I discovered that that wasn't going to change after purchasing the liscence! I went through about 30 companies and even lost track over which one's did what after a while, but this one company allowed me to buy their product and build MY OWN product. For that I praised them via e-mail and will praise them by telling the development world about their products. So...Indigo Rose...it does happen (word of mouth can offest loss of advertising space).

Graphix...thanks for the invite to the MMB software. It will be interesting to see how Indigo Rose responds to it and to our common request to offer a single .exe . Because even if some AMS users aren't pleading for it, they would certainly upgrade if it was available as a free install.

You're not missing anything other than that, but don't take my word for it...check it out. Out of respect for this forum I won't post the location of this program, but AMS is better anyways for the reasons stated above and more for the reasons I didn't have room to write.



Protocol

(Thanks for reading this book [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] )

[Corey]

Re: Right Click Properties Version infomation

Well said. If more registered users put together intelligent requests like that maybe IR management will consider some of these issues in a new light. Officially I support all current Indigo Rose policies 100% but personally off the record I would like to see users be able to brand their own applications someday as Protocol mentions.

The single .exe was something I suggested to the dev team months ago, I'm sure they have that under consideration. I agree that this would also be a key improvement that would increase our popularity.

Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software