Picture Viewer

[Fzara]

Any good programs to view pictures on PPC2002?
I put a couple pictures on my PDA from my 8mb CF Card, from my million old digital camera, but I have to click every single one. IE just doesnt display them in a good, organized GUI interface.
Any suggestions? And preferably freeware?

[Rirath]

Pocket Quick View, freeware. Search Handango for more, like Resco.
Pqv (http://www.bitbanksoftware.com/PQView.html)

[Pony99CA]

Pocket Quick View, freeware. Search Handango for more, like Resco.
Pqv (http://www.bitbanksoftware.com/PQView.html)
Actually, PQV is not freeware. The link you provided says it's free to evaluate, otherwise it's $29.95. Evaluation should not go on forever. :-)

Steve

[Steven Cedrone]

Actually, it is freeware. From the site:

"Pocket PC (PPC & PPC2002 - ARM, SH3, MIPS) Downloads

PQView PPC is available for download HERE . This is a user-friendly install program which you run on your PC when connected to the CE device. This code is a full version with no time limit."

Steve

[Fzara]

I never knew how cool it was to check out digital pics on my PDA until now. You guys are damn well amazing. I only wish you can buy me 2 512mb CF memory card (ya know, one for mp3's, another one for pics and programs) :)

[Pony99CA]

Actually, it is freeware. From the site:

"Pocket PC (PPC & PPC2002 - ARM, SH3, MIPS) Downloads

PQView PPC is available for download HERE . This is a user-friendly install program which you run on your PC when connected to the CE device. This code is a full version with no time limit."

Yes, but no time limit does not imply freeware; it merely implies that he trusts us. :-)

To argue against it being freeware, here's another quote from the site:


Pricing

PQView may be evaluated for free.
For any other use you must purchase PQView.
Price is US$ 29.95 - volume discounts are available.
PQView can now be purchased from our secure website.

Given the above, I would not be comfortable recommending PQV as freeware. I've sent a Private Message to Larry (bitbank) and asked him to give us the final word....

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I never knew how cool it was to check out digital pics on my PDA until now. You guys are damn well amazing. I only wish you can buy me 2 512mb CF memory card (ya know, one for mp3's, another one for pics and programs) :)
I have a 512 MB card in my iPAQ 3870 with Pocket CoPilot GPS and my MP3s. That replaced a 256 MB card which now sits in my Canon digital camera. That replaced a 128 MB card which now sits in my Kodak digital camera. Who'd have guessed that CF cards would be hand-me-downs? :-D

Steve

[Rirath]

:roll: Even if it isn't freeware, and it's just not timed limited, I'm still calling it freeware.
There's far too many things to worry about in a day to spend more than 30 seconds deciding what class of -ware a program is.

[bitbank]

The truth is that it is not freeware. I borrowed the licensing term idea from PocketTV. Because of the confusion surrounding this idea, and the fact that very few people have purchased the product, I am changing the policy for PQV 3.0.

The new version (which includes many improvements), will be $19.99 with a 30 day evaluation period. The installer will contain the Desktop PC, Pocket PC and Handheld PC versions. The license is per user, not machine so you can install it on as many machines as you like.

Larry B.

[Rirath]

Well then, how about sticking with the Pocket TV idea and leaving a classic version (2.0, maybe even scaled down) available as actual freeware? It'd be sad to see the best "untimed demo" picture viewer to go and would sure help promote 3.0. With Resco coming free on every Axim it sure wouldn't hurt.

[Steven Cedrone]

The truth is that it is not freeware. I borrowed the licensing term idea from PocketTV. Because of the confusion surrounding this idea, and the fact that very few people have purchased the product, I am changing the policy for PQV 3.0.

The new version (which includes many improvements), will be $19.99 with a 30 day evaluation period. The installer will contain the Desktop PC, Pocket PC and Handheld PC versions. The license is per user, not machine so you can install it on as many machines as you like.

Larry B.

Oooops! :oops:

Well, thanks for clearing that up! I was under the impression that for Pocket PC use it was free, but for Handheld PC you had to pay...[Update: looking at this statement, I guess it really didn't make sense :wink: ]

Steve

I knew I had this conversation before (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4591&start=0)...

[Pony99CA]

:roll: Even if it isn't freeware, and it's just not timed limited, I'm still calling it freeware.
There's far too many things to worry about in a day to spend more than 30 seconds deciding what class of -ware a program is.
And yet you probably spent more than 30 seconds making that post.... :devilboy: Is calling it "shareware" now that Larry has clarified the situation really too difficult?

The problem is that when you call it freeware, if other people believe you, they won't pay Larry. Maybe you won't care, but I bet Larry will.... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Steve

[Rirath]

It's not difficult, it's misinformation. Shareware implies limitations, and I'm not about to sit back and tell someone that they should pay $30 and get nothing for it. For now, PQV is the best free image viewer on the net. If that's taken away completely with 3.0 then I and many others will never touch it again. I have great respect for coders who do freeware. If Larry cares about any of this or not is his business. He's apparently a smart man, he had to have known what he was getting into when he put out software with no limitations. "PQView may be evaluated for free." + indefinite time limit = freeware for most people.

Defending myself over the use of terms is really getting old. For the love of all that is good folks, stop taking me so freakin literally. :x

[bitbank]

Rirath,
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it was wrong of me to trust people's honesty in paying for software that they were allowed to use without limitation. Instead I should have limited the code in some way and then given them something more functional when they paid for it?

As far as the new code. I hope people find that it is worth $20. It outperforms every other image viewer in all areas and has the bonus of including a desktop PC version with some unique features.

Once code is released to "the net", it can't really be unreleased. So once I release version 3.0, if people still want to use 2.0 for free, I'm sure it will be resident on someone else's site. I don't think it would be wise of me to encourage people to use the older version for free when I am trying to sell the new version. I'm glad you respect coders who release free software, but as someone who writes CE software for a living and has to support a family, I cannot afford to wait for charitable donations from people who like my software. I wish I had more time to create free software because I do enjoy it, but the reality of paying the bills forces me to sell it for a profit. Perhaps my software will be included "for free" on some future Pocket PC. This would be great for me and the community. I've spoken to people who have made those deals and they don't make much money, but it is worth doing nonetheless.

One more thought...as a programmer, I am constantly trying to improve the quality and usefulness of my software. Once I have completed a new vesrion which fixes and improves upon the old version, I want people to stop using the old code and use the new code so that they don't encounter problems and have the most current features. This is another reason why I don't want to encourage users to continue using older versions of my software. There are many bugs and limitations in PQV 2.0 that I would like to put behind me.

Larry B.

[Rirath]

Rirath,
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it was wrong of me to trust people's honesty in paying for software that they were allowed to use without limitation. Instead I should have limited the code in some way and then given them something more functional when they paid for it?

Indeed. It's worked for thousands of devs over the last few decades. It'll work for you as well, with PQV 3.0. You have to know this is the way to go, or you wouldn't be doing it with the next release. I find it quite hard to believe you're honestly surprised by this, since you say you do this for a living. Aside from that, up until this thread I honestly thought PQV was simply free, at least for personal use. The website doesn't really stress that it's not.

I like PQV, and I hope you have a lot of success with it. The only reason I probably won't be using it as a registered program is Resco does the trick quite well. I just hate to see PQV 2.0 become some passed around program through 3rd party websites. I honestly hope you prove me wrong and PQV ends up being the killer image viewer, I'm not a Resco fan but I've recommend your viewer many times.

[bitbank]

The point is that shareware / charityware rarely makes for a succesful business model.

For PQV 3.0, I will allow a free 30 day trial period for the software. This is something that I understand is necessary to allow people to see if it does what they want and I agree with. Are you saying that I should allow an unlimited evaluation time, but cripple it in some way until they pay for it?

L.B.

[Rirath]

Are you saying that I should allow an unlimited evaluation time, but cripple it in some way until they pay for it?

No, not at all... I don't believe I ever mentioned that. The only thing I'd like to see is a very simplistic version 2.0 since when it goes, there'll be nothing left for many people. If you don't want to or can't, that's your choice.

As far as a business model, the only thing I can say is that a simplistic free version would certainly help to spread the word that your software exists.

[Rirath]

Woah... hold up. I knew I saw this somewhere! Taken straight from Handango:

"This program may be evaluated for free for personal use without limitation, but must be purchsed for any commercial purposes. "

That just screams free to me. It's no wonder with messages like that and on the homepage why it's sold 3.5k compared to Resco's 46k. I know it says "evaluated", but no one reads that closely.

[bitbank]

That is why I am changing the policy on the new version. The original policy left too much room for confusion and even if everyone was honest, it would still generate few sales.

Don't be fooled by the 3.5K; that is the number of downloads, not the number of sales. I have found that there is a 100:1 ratio of downloads to sales.

L.B.

[Rirath]

Ah yes, forgot they included trial downloads in that tally.

[Jason Dunn]

If that's taken away completely with 3.0 then I and many others will never touch it again. I have great respect for coders who do freeware.

I understand what you're saying, freeware apps are great, but I have just as much respect for people who want to make a living doing what they love to do. I find it a little ironic that you praise PQView on on hand, yet with the other you're saying that if you had to pay anything for it you wouldn't. Kinda' odd isn't it? :wink:

I'm not sure what you do for a living since I think you're still going to school, but once you get out into the work force, try doing your job for free and see if respect from others will put food on your table. :ninja:

[Rirath]

I find it a little ironic that you praise PQView on on hand, yet with the other you're saying that if you had to pay anything for it you wouldn't. Kinda' odd isn't it?

Well, as I said in a post just below that, the main reason is I already have Resco. Who really needs two image viewers? I really do hope PQV trounces Resco with 3.0 though, we'll see. Not that I hate Resco, just that I'd like to see something that much better. The issue I have isn't if version 3.0 goes to pay software or not, that's just fine by me. I simply suggested as a user that I'd love to see the current version or a stripped down current version continued to be offered.

The only real issue I have is all this backlash from calling PQV "freeware". The guy simply asked for a free image viewer, I gave one, all seemed well. For everything but commercial use, before today I would have swore PQV was true, simple, freeware. It's still what a great deal of the net would call free... just not in the strict sense of the word "freeware". And stictly literal interpretation seems to be law here. :wink:

I'm not sure what you do for a living since I think you're still going to school, but once you get out into the work force, try doing your job for free and see if respect from others will put food on your table

All I'll say is you can count on me doing my fair share of things for free, as I currently do. Always have, always will. I know you meant that sarcastically, but it's actually good advice. Doing a little something of your chosen profession without finical compensation can get respect, open doors, and in the long run, put food on the table. Your work for free here at PPC Thoughts has almost certainly gained you some respect in the professional field, hasn't it?

[Fzara]

Wow. i didnt know how many posts this topic gained while I was on the other forums. DAMN.

This is one of the biggest problems of the PPC platform compared to the Palm OS platform: The number of freeware apps. I obviously know the websites for freeware PPC apps, but compared to the Palm OS's, theres definitely no competition.

In the long run, in my opinion, freeware apps does let your corp/business gain popularity and respect after a certain time. Just my $.02.

[Pony99CA]

The only real issue I have is all this backlash from calling PQV "freeware". The guy simply asked for a free image viewer, I gave one, all seemed well. For everything but commercial use, before today I would have swore PQV was true, simple, freeware. It's still what a great deal of the net would call free... just not in the strict sense of the word "freeware". And stictly literal interpretation seems to be law here. :wink:

Actually, it wasn't backlash at first. You said that PQV was free, and I can understand why you thought that. You weren't the only one to be confused. That's why I cited the portion of Larry's Web site where it said it was only free for evaluation.

I don't think there would have been any backlash if you'd taken the same tack as Steve C. and just said you made a mistake. The Web site was a bit confusing in parts, and I believe that you genuinely believed the program was free. That's why I asked Larry to clear the situation up.

You got backlash when you said you'd still call it freeware, even after it was pointed out that it really wasn't, and when you pretty much told Larry he was foolish for putting good, uncrippled software out for free evaluation.

As for what a good deal of the Net would do, who cares? That doesn't mean they're right.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

This is one of the biggest problems of the PPC platform compared to the Palm OS platform: The number of freeware apps. I obviously know the websites for freeware PPC apps, but compared to the Palm OS's, theres definitely no competition.

In the long run, in my opinion, freeware apps does let your corp/business gain popularity and respect after a certain time. Just my $.02.
Yes, they may get respect, but respect doesn't put food on the table. :-D If someone wants to put out free software, I'm all for it, but I don't expect it, and I won't tell another programmer that he should make his work available for free.

Anyway, to get back on track, here are some free graphics viewers (http://www.freewareppc.com/graphics/graphics_viewers.shtml). Sadly, the site doesn't have a lot, and, as I haven't used them, I can't vouch for their quality.

Steve

[Rirath]

I don't think there would have been any backlash if you'd taken the same tack as Steve C. and just said you made a mistake.

I admit I'm wrong, when I'm wrong. The website and especially Handango both clearly state the program can be freely evaluated for personal usage without limitation. Which is in my general, non strict, terms: freeware.

and when you pretty much told Larry he was foolish for putting good, uncrippled software out for free evaluation.

Only in a real world business sense, in this one case. You all seem to agree with each other that freeware means bad sells. But yet you're surprised that non-crippled software means bad sells. Add that to the messages clearly stating the terms of personal 'evaluation' are without limitation, and you don't have a very successful business plan for anything but commercial application. Tell me the business major that would disagree with me.

If someone wants to put out free software, I'm all for it, but I don't expect it, and I won't tell another programmer that he should make his work available for free.

I realize this wasn't directed toward me... but anyhow. Just because you wouldn't suggest a programmer do some free work, doesn't mean others wouldn't. I sure would, and just have. There's not a thing in this world wrong with that. If my request is respectfully turned down by Larry as I believe it has been, so be it.

[Pony99CA]

and when you pretty much told Larry he was foolish for putting good, uncrippled software out for free evaluation.

Only in a real world business sense, in this one case. You all seem to agree with each other that freeware means bad sells. But yet you're surprised that non-crippled software means bad sells. Add that to the messages clearly stating the terms of personal 'evaluation' are without limitation, and you don't have a very successful business plan for anything but commercial application. Tell me the business major that would disagree with me.

"Freeware" shouldn't mean any sales. :-) And I am not surprised at all that Larry didn't get many sales with a non-crippled, non-timed version; greed and selfishness don't surprise me (probably because I'm greedy and selfish :-D). My only statement was that calling him foolish for doing that is likely to get backlash. True, it probably wasn't the best business decision, but that's his choice.

Calling him foolish (even in a business sense) for that decision, then saying you want him to keep a freeware version available now that he's adding a time limit even smacks of hypocrisy. You admitted that you won't pay for PQV because you have Resco "free" on your Dell. It also sounds like you think PQV 2.0 is better than Resco. So why would you assume people who got PQV 2.0 (or 3.0 Lite) for free would pay for the full version? Some would, I'm sure, but by your own logic, it's probably not a good business decision.


I realize this wasn't directed toward me... but anyhow. Just because you wouldn't suggest a programmer do some free work, doesn't mean others wouldn't. I sure would, and just have. There's not a thing in this world wrong with that. If my request is respectfully turned down by Larry as I believe it has been, so be it.
You complained about me taking you too literally, but you aren't reading me literally enough. As you've noticed, I tend to take words very seriously, and so I try to choose mine carefully (not that I always succeed, mind you :-)).

I didn't say somebody couldn't suggest that a programmer make software freely available. Most reasonable people will accept suggestions about things if there are good reasons behind them. You gave some reasons why you thought a version of PQV should be free, which is fair.

What I was saying was that telling someone that they should do something bothers me, because "should", according to a dictionary I just checked, expresses obligation or duty. Larry has no obligation or duty to anybody here (except maybe his customers :-)).

When someone tells me what I should do, that feels more like them trying to force their morality on me. Being a free country, they have the right to tell me what I "should" do, but then I have the right to tell them what they can do (and it's usually something physically impossible). :twisted:

Steve

[Rirath]

True, it probably wasn't the best business decision, but that's his choice.

Hallelujah! :D

Calling him foolish (even in a business sense) for that decision, then saying you want him to keep a freeware version available now that he's adding a time limit even smacks of hypocrisy. So why would you assume people who got PQV 2.0 (or 3.0 Lite) for free would pay for the full version? Some would, I'm sure, but by your own logic, it's probably not a good business decision.

Well, I may indeed be somewhat hypocritical. :wink: Though I think my hypocrisy on this issue is minimal. Keeping a free version may not be the very best of business decisions, but I don't always suggest what's best for a company. I still maintain it would be a good, though maybe not the best, decision. Many people new to Pocket PC's will look for an image viewer, and aren't ready to buy one yet. PQV lite would give them a basic, bare-bones software to use, while making them aware of the advantages of 3.0. PQV 3.0 should put the bare-bones version to shame. It would draw the eyes away from the higher priced Resco and their trial. But like I said earlier... it's simply something I would like to see.

I know you'll probably cite the demo, but many people won't get around to buying it within the 30 days. At which point, they'll find another demo. Added to that is the fact that freeware is very easy to recommend, and people love to be told of something free. It just shines more light on PQV. There's a big difference between this idea and the current system.

You complained about me taking you too literally, but you aren't reading me literally enough. As you've noticed, I tend to take words very seriously, and so I try to choose mine carefully (not that I always succeed, mind you ).

And here lies our main problem I believe. :lol:

When someone tells me what I should do, that feels more like them trying to force their morality on me. Being a free country, they have the right to tell me what I "should" do, but then I have the right to tell them what they can do (and it's usually something physically impossible).

And I'm glad you do, more people shou... errm... uh.. -- I'd suggest more people follow your example. :lol:

[Pony99CA]

Calling him foolish (even in a business sense) for that decision, then saying you want him to keep a freeware version available now that he's adding a time limit even smacks of hypocrisy. So why would you assume people who got PQV 2.0 (or 3.0 Lite) for free would pay for the full version? Some would, I'm sure, but by your own logic, it's probably not a good business decision.

Well, I may indeed be somewhat hypocritical. :wink: And keeping a free version may not be the very best of business decisions, but I don't always suggest what's best for a company, just what I'd like to see. :)

We're all a bit hypocritical at times. And I don't expect anyone to look out for anything but their own interests. :-) It's nice when they do, though.


However, I still maintain it would be a good, though maybe not the best, decision. Many people new to Pocket PC's will look for an image viewer, and aren't ready to buy one yet. PQV lite would give them a bare-bones software to use, while making them aware of the advantages of 3.0. It would draw the eyes away from the higher priced Resco and their trial. Plus it'd just prove what a nice guy he is. :lol:

This is what I don't get. A time-limited, functionally complete version of PQV 3.0 will also give them a version to use (for 30 days, at least) and will do more to make them aware of the advantages of 3.0 than 2.0 or a crippled 3.0 will. The only difference is that, if they still aren't ready to buy after 30 days, they can't keep using the software. (That, and the software won't be on any freeware sites.)

I do get why you (and I :-)) would want a free version, of course.

As for Larry being a nice guy, I think he proved that with PQV 2.0 being completely functional with no time limits. :-) But that doesn't feed the bulldog.

Steve

[Rirath]

Sorry, see above for the demo answer... ^_^; I like to post a rough draft then edit it up to the final... not used to people replying so quickly.

[Pony99CA]

Sorry, see above for the demo answer... ^_^; I like to post a rough draft then edit it up to the final... not used to people replying so quickly.
Hehehe -- I'm quick. But I do the opposite -- I preview my post, proofread it, then preview again until I get it "right". I only edit a post if I have something minor to correct (typos) or if I notice something wrong before anybody else has posted.

The downside is that sometimes I've had people beat me to the post when trying to answer a question. I guess two answers are better than none, though. :-)

Steve

[Rirath]

Yep, it's a trade-off either way. Or I suppose one could just be happy with hitting the submit button once and forgetting it.
Not likely. :)