4 messages in com.perforce.perforce-userPrice| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Bern...@microsoft.com | 09 Apr 1998 12:17 | |
| dave...@cccpp.com | 09 Apr 1998 14:45 | |
| Bern...@microsoft.com | 10 Apr 1998 14:33 | |
| Ping...@MIT.EDU | 10 Apr 1998 16:32 |
| Subject: | Price![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | dave...@cccpp.com (dave...@cccpp.com) |
| Date: | 04/09/1998 02:45:31 PM |
| List: | com.perforce.perforce-user |
I have no problem with the price hike. Sure, I'd rather see it go down too.
But I guess I
weigh the cost per user vs. the productivity per user. Perforce is very easy to
use,
presents a desirable usage model, and is rock solid. I compare that to the
nightmare
of constantly dealing with the corrupted data base problems my 30+ engineers
lived with
over the last 18 months with SourceSafe. Do I think having a SCM that is
reliable
is worth an extra $3K per year from my budget ? You bet.
Even if Perforce is higher priced than "several other systems", it seems worth
it to me for
a tool which we will use daily.
thanks
- -dave
------Original Message----- From: v-bernit at microsoft.com [SMTP:v-bernit at microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 12:17 PM To: 'perforce-user at perforce.com' Subject: Price
Perforce recently changed their pricing, and hiked the price for <50 users. I understand (and even appreciate) going to a fixed, tiered pricing model for Perforce. But the $100 bump in price puts it above the street prices several other systems. As a customer, obviously I would like the base price at $500, and scale down from there.
Thanks, Bernie
----------------------------- Bernie Thompson (S3, Inc) v-bernit at microsoft.com 425.703.2255 x23336 (Microsoft) 425.861.1194 (Home/Office) Shipping Address: 27S/2231 One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052




