Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[6233638]

Will upgrading my Windows copy to MC20 require Mac clients to be upgraded to MC20 as well?
 
I know this happened in MC19 because there were a number of library format changes, but I don't know if that's just how things are going to be. (I would hope not)

[glynor]

Generally, the client and the server versions must match.

[6233638]

Generally, the client and the server versions must match.

I could understand this restriction back when there was a single Media Center license, or perhaps big changes to the library format that required the new version, but now that there are three separate licenses I think this policy needs to be re-evaluated.
 
If MC20 for Mac gets something big like video support, that's a good reason to upgrade.
If I have to upgrade to MC20 for Mac just because I bought the upgrade for my PC, that's not cool.
 
You're essentially punishing people for buying an upgrade, instead of making them feel good about it.

[JimH]

You're essentially punishing people for buying an upgrade, instead of making them feel good about it.

It isn't glynor's fault.  Nor ours.  Sometimes we need to make changes that cause the problem you're concerned about.  Sometimes not.

[glynor]

You're essentially punishing people for buying an upgrade, instead of making them feel good about it.

I get where you're coming from, but... There's still lots of software that is still licensed per-seat.  Fewer now than before, but even with most of them, the license is subscription-based (so you have to pay each year, and there's usually not an "upgrade" discount).

I don't see this as a serious issue if the upgrade price is reasonable.*

Sometimes we need to make changes that cause the problem you're concerned about.  Sometimes not.

I wasn't sure that compatibility was always broken with major versions.  Of course, I've typically just upgraded, so I don't know for sure how often this is true vs not.  In any case, good to know it isn't an "always" thing.

* I should note... Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I know there are others.  I prefer to pay for software, generally, even when there are free alternatives available.  For example, on the App Store for my iOS devices, I honestly seek out paid-for apps, and am extremely hesitant to even download and try the free versions.  Most of them are so crappy, or they require something else to make their money.  There's nothing really free in this world.

I certainly wasn't always this way.  Way, way back in the day, there was good, well-supported open source software.  There still is, for certain things, but... I've been doing this a long time.  They vanish a LOT.  A project is the "One" for a long time, and then the community moves on, or the developers get bored (or more likely, they get out of college and get real jobs).  That gets extremely tiring the 392nd time it happens and you've invested time and built a whole workflow and then stuff breaks and you never get fixes.

When you pay for it, you're buying into a sustainable business model.  JRiver has been around for a long time.  My investment of time hasn't been wasted and I've been using this software for over ten years now (actually, I think more like 13).  I can't think of many free products of this quality, which still get regular updates, of which I can say the same.  Because no one is paying for it.

To me, a fair price is a feature, not a bug.

[6233638]

I get where you're coming from, but... There's still lots of software that is still licensed per-seat.  Fewer now than before, but even with most of them, the license is subscription-based (so you have to pay each year, and there's usually not an "upgrade" discount).

I don't see this as a serious issue if the upgrade price is reasonable.*

With the rise of the App Store, per-seat licenses are disappearing for most applications now. I can't think of the last program I bought which had that restriction on its license now.
 
And most applications which are sold outside of that model usually offer a discount (typically 50%) if you own a license for one platform, and are buying a license for another - if they even have separate licenses, that is. Even Adobe's licenses are multi-platform these days.
 
Adobe has moved from selling a license to a subscription model for most of their products now (a practice I will not support) but their licenses were not per-seat before.


But the issue remains: we won't know until it happens.
Unless we are told outright that a MC20 sever requires MC20 clients, it could happen at any time.
 
I use the Mac version so infrequently that it is not worth upgrading immediately - but I don't know that I want to lose the ability to use it at all either.

For me, the main thing which would interest me in upgrading would be full video support - video support is fairly poor on OS X.
For other people, maybe they don't care about video support at all, and wouldn't want to upgrade to MC20 on their secondary machines.

I wasn't sure that compatibility was always broken with major versions.  Of course, I've typically just upgraded, so I don't know for sure how often this is true vs not.  In any case, good to know it isn't an "always" thing.

Yes, I'm glad to hear that, and I hope that's the case with MC20.

* I should note... Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I know there are others.  I prefer to pay for software, generally, even when there are free alternatives available.  For example, on the App Store for my iOS devices, I honestly seek out paid-for apps, and am extremely hesitant to even download and try the free versions.  Most of them are so crappy, or they require something else to make their money.  There's nothing really free in this world.

I think there can be good free apps out there, but my main concern with that is privacy - especially apps running on a phone.
Apple is doing a lot to help lock things down, like OS-level restrictions on when an app can access the address book, the camera, your photo roll etc. but it still makes me uncomfortable to use a free app.
Not that being a paid app means your data isn't for sale, just that it's less likely.

Way, way back in the day, there was good, well-supported open source software.  There still is, for certain things, but... I've been doing this a long time.  They vanish a LOT.  A project is the "One" for a long time, and then the community moves on, or the developers get bored (or more likely, they get out of college and get real jobs).  That gets extremely tiring the 392nd time it happens and you've invested time and built a whole workflow and then stuff breaks and you never get fixes.

When you pay for it, you're buying into a sustainable business model.  JRiver has been around for a long time.  My investment of time hasn't been wasted and I've been using this software for over ten years now (actually, I think more like 13).  I can't think of many free products of this quality, which still get regular updates, of which I can say the same.  Because no one is paying for it.

To me, a fair price is a feature, not a bug.

I'm not saying that being paid is bad at all.
I'm saying that requiring all clients to be on the same version as the server sucks when the licenses for each platform are separate.
 
I should be choosing to upgrade if there is a new feature that I want, not because I'm forced to.
 
Potentially being forced into buying a Mac license as well, makes me hesitant to buy a Windows license for MC20 at all.

[Hendrik]

There are no strict version requirements that require the same version "just because", but if we need change the protocol to add new features, a new MC major version is the only time we can safely do that, and we won't usually hesitate to do so either.

Having said that, I don't yet know if that will be the case.

[BryanC]

A nice reconciliation would be to make subsequent major MC releases database/library server compatible, at least to support the existing library server features in the legacy version.

So if any changes to MC20 would break compatibility with MC19, MC19 should receive a legacy update to stay compatible with MC20, but not necessarily support new MC20 library server features. MC18 and older would not be expected to receive the updates.

I understand the frustration when it seems like customers are being 'punished' for using multiple OS's, especially when using multiple OS's is done out of necessity and not by choice. For instance, I rarely interface directly with my linux box at work, choosing instead to remote in from my windows machine. However, occasionally I'll need to spend a late night physically working on it and would like to access my library server. I'm fine paying $25 to get MC for Linux for those rare sessions, but I might be hesitant to upgrade my server if it meant I'd lose compatibility on my linux box, considering I only use MC on it every other month.

I think the solution I mentioned above might actually motivate more users to upgrade MC on their main platforms without fear of losing compatibility on their secondary and tertiary systems.

[aoqw76]

I have the same Q for Linux; I run MC19 for Linux feeding MC19 on 2 windows computers; just purchased "early bird" upgrade for MC20 for windows, but didnt think about needing Linux MC20, is that likely? (and if so, when might the Linux early build MC20 be available?)

[6233638]

If I had to guess, you are probably fine using newer clients with an older server, you're more likely to have problems with older clients connecting to a newer server.
 
I agree with everything that BryanC posted - he put it far better than I would have.

[JimH]

If I had to guess, you are probably fine using newer clients with an older server, you're more likely to have problems with older clients connecting to a newer server.

I don't think that's the case.  We try to maintain compatibility between versions, but it isn't always possible.