mobileME purchase options

Home Forums Multi-Edit Dev Discussions mobileME purchase options

This topic contains 13 replies, has 19,174 voices, and was last updated by  sofiajoe 4 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #710

    DanHughes
    Participant

    As we begin working on the next release of Multi-Edit we would like to get some feedback from you our users about mobileME and how you would like to see it distributed.

    We have a few ideas which include distributing it on our own branded USB drive, or provide mobileME as a downloadable installer to be installed to any media type you prefer, or bundled with as a ‘Multi-Edit Suite’ to allow ultimate portibility and productivity.

    Please take a few moments to click the method you’d like to see in the next build of Multi Edit Software’s mobileME and make your opinions count!

    #7726

    curtm
    Participant

    I love Multi-Edit, and I was excited when I heard about Mobile ME, but it needs to be written as a portable app. The moment I read that you populated the registry on startup, and erased it on shutdown it was clear to me that this is not a sufficiently different product (or well thought-out one, for that matter) to warrant my excitement.

    I am a consultant, and it would be a huge boon to me to be able to use my favorite editor when I visit client sites. But this is not the way.

    I have found that my old copy of ME7 works okay on a thumb drive — it doesn’t require anything but the executable, the config file, and the Borland library file to run. But I would buy it in a heartbeat if you released a TRUE portable version of ME.

    #7730

    Dan Rhea
    Participant

    I really like MobileME, but like Curt, I would greatly prefer if it did not need to make registry changes on the host system (even if they are cleaned up later).

    #7731

    DanHughes
    Participant

    The registry keys that Multi-Edit uses are to do the following.

    1) Allow Multi-Edit’s COM server to be enabled so that external programs can control Multi-Edit.

    2) Entries for the IDE integration packages to be able to get their settings.

    3) The ability to have the Edit with Multi-Edit shell context menu.

    We could remove all of that capability and Multi-Edit could then be run without any registry access. Is this something users actually want? This means that a user could no longer use Multi-Edit synchronization with any of the Borland or Microsoft IDEs.

    #7732

    DoubleT
    Participant

    We could remove all of that capability and Multi-Edit could then be run without any registry access. Is this something users actually want?[/quote:3uo0go0q]
    I think, yes!

    Why not simply add an option, so the user could decide?

    #7733

    curtm
    Participant

    I would prefer losing those features to writing to the registry. When I use a portable app, I don’t really expect COM services or menu integration. The whole point of a portable app is low profile, low overhead, and–ummm–portability.

    Perhaps those features could be enabled with a command-line switch: something like:

    MEW32 /USEREG

    #7734

    kale
    Participant

    Perhaps those features could be enabled with a command-line switch: something like:
    MEW32 /USEREG[/quote:e4c96hj0]

    Yes, this would be a good thing to do. A portable app shouldn’t use registry unless instructed to do so. These features should be there in case they are needed, but in the portable version of ME they should be disabled by default (and enabled in the "desktop version", of course).

    #7737

    bldrdash
    Participant

    1) Allow Multi-Edit’s COM server to be enabled so that external programs can control Multi-Edit.

    2) Entries for the IDE integration packages to be able to get their settings.

    3) The ability to have the Edit with Multi-Edit shell context menu.

    We could remove all of that capability and Multi-Edit could then be run without any registry access. Is this something users actually want?[/quote:2xjr7ssn]

    I too would prefer no registry modifications. Items 1 and 2 probably aren’t as important if you’re running mobile. Item 3 really doesn’t have much value add for me, and I’d gladly trade off shell integration for no reg mods.

    It would also be nice to see improvements to MobileME.exe or to get rid of it all together. My biggest complaint is that you can’t launch ME from the command line (e.g.: mew32.exe c:\code\myfile.cpp). I’ve already had to re-write a MobileME.exe to accommodate this, but it would be 10x better if Mew32 could simply manage itself via .ini or .xml files.

    #7741

    SansHobo
    Participant

    A portable app is the perfect software for me. It keeps my setting in one spot. If you look at filezilla at sourceforge, it asks if you want it in the registry or in it’s own xml file.

    I love how ME asks for our opinion; As you state, this is the programmers editor…

    #7742

    rbtatum
    Participant

    I’m an adjunct instructor at a local community college. Since adjunct instructors are not provided with an assigned computer, we get to use any available public computer on campus where system access and privileges seem to be enforced through a group policy. Depending on how "locked down" the security is set for a particular system, I may or may not be able to run mobileME.

    I started thinking about the information previously posted about the Windows Registry changes made by mobileME at startup and shutdown. If a user is not allowed to make changes to the Registry of a particular computer due to a security level (such as the one I’ve described above), then it could explain why I was not able to get mobileME to run on some systems but would run perfectly well on others.

    I really like the ideas posted by DoubleT, curtm, and kale about having the use of those three features changed to options controlled by the user. This would permit this terrific mobileME product to be used in situations where tight security measures are enforced.

    I want to be very clear about my position concerning Multi-Edit and mobileME: I am very pleased about my decision to purchase this software and I have thoroughly enjoyed its use both at work and at home. It’s a rare day when I DO NOT learn some new thing, trick, or tip about the Best Programmer’s Text Editor.

    Thank You for all of the hard work, from everyone, that has produced this outstanding programming tool!

    #7787

    Tim Pearce
    Participant

    I cannot find anywhere to click !?

    #9718

    sofiajoe
    Participant

    Is there a comparison of ME 2008 and the Lite version? After quite a bit of searching the site and googling for a comparison or version differences, I couldn’t find anything. If you have such a chart is is really well hidden. The feature lists for each one are so long it’s very difficult to see what the differences are. I guess the real question is why would someone buy ME2008 when Lite does so much?

    #9719

    sofiajoe
    Participant

    Update.upd will modify language settings; what would be nice is to have the ability to actually select a stored language setup, then create a UPD file so the same settings can be moved to a new MEW install, or easily edited, for instance for a newer version of the same language. also maybe have the UPD heavily commented.

    #709

    Clay Martin
    Keymaster

    A comparison of MeLite and the Full version can be found here:
    http://multiedit.com/MEvsMeL.php

    Thanks,
    Clay

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.