Couple of points from various threads here on PG 1. Several people have asked about the link where I read the PC Mag write up. It wasn't a link but an electronically delivered copy of the next issue. 2. About PG being an "unfinished" product. Nonsense. It does it's job. A lot of the things being asked for are window dressing. There is a real economic limit to how many of them one can keep doing relative to a program being sold at $29.95 where upgrades are free. I use Intuits Quickbooks Pro. They upgrade once a year. Paid $299 for it back in 2003, and $199 a year every year since then. There's a difference. 3. But the "startup" concerns. There are some simple non technical solutions. Personally I turn my system off every night. I don't do any scheduled stuff while asleep. I have learned the hard way every now and then things go badly wrong, and if I am not sort of keeping an eye on them I might miss something important, that could give me a clue as to what happened. So I turn everything off a night. Assuming my system is clean when I shut down, first thing I turn on is my router. Ergo hardware firewall is up. I do have an advantage in I can turn of my cable modem's connection, or it would be the last thing powered up. End result is no internet connection until I am fully booted running. This solves with common sense all start up issues, be they software firewalls and/or PG. First step in security is simple common sense. 4. Communication issues. I own a "service" business, that depends on clients continually using a service. Communication is first and foremost paramount. But with DCS we purchased a product, and are promised only a working product and free upgrades. No where is there a promise of constant communication updates on program status. Would they help my machine be more secure. Nope. I wonder if there would be the same level of noise, if it require a phone call to Perth as opposed to a post online. Lastlly if anyone complains about DCS and communication issues, try it with the folks that sell in big yellow boxes or big red boxes. Good luck on any communication on anything at all. Blue if this post is inappropriate and you either close or delete I'll understand, but somethings need to be said. Pete
Of course, anything that is supportive is highly acceptable. Anything critical is unacceptable, no matter how right it may be. Peter2150, You are smarter than that. We purchased a product that requires service, thus, we purchased the service. As the owner of a service business, I'm sure that you don't simply give your customers what's required of you. If so, you are likely being outperformed by your competitors. Actually, I would love the opportunity to discuss this over the phone. At a cost of less then 15 U.S. cents per minute I would welcome the debate. I just need a phone number and a time/date. Justification of one's errors by siting another's isn't sound logic. You're saying, yes we have a communication problem, but other's have an even bigger problem, therefore, ours isn't so bad. Blue, I imagine this "nice post" has now become inappropriate.
dallen, No, not yet. I'll reserve judement with respect to the evolution of this thread. The other thread was going nowhere and speculating on topics (specific release dates, internal personnel matters) that are really rather inappropriate for this forum. I realize the genesis of your comments reflect issues that can impact a customer in the future, but in a commercial operation there are matters revolving around internal operations that are simply not within the scope of this or any other public forum. According to your sig, you are enrolled in an MBA program. I'd expect that you would have a sensitivity to the topics the simply are off-bounds in a public forum - that obviously includes internal policy matters (allocation of resources), strategic and tactical marketing issues (release timing and product positioning), and matters of personnel (who does what and when they do it). These topics are simply not the grist of a support forum. Finally, I hope you recognize that while the discussion remains in view for anyone to see, further idle speculation on specifics by anyone outside DCS (and that includes myself) is unproductive since it is not based on any factual content. Hence, I took the decision to close that particular thread. Regards, Blue
heres the link for pcmags comment on process guard http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1815635,00.asp heres the link for pcmags comment on port explorer http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1815812,00.asp
We purchased a product that requires service Certainly TDS requires updates to virus signatures, and certainly all products will have to be tested when there is a new windows version, but what service does any of the program require beyond that. I haven't had to "service" Port Explorer, TDS, PG or any other DCS product. If they break because of something I do, or add to my computer whose fault is that. And when that happens there is indeed help here. Also my comparison to the yellow and red boxes, yes I am biased to DCS, and that is preciously because when I've needed help from DCS I've gotten it. Can't say the same for the other boxes. In fact I ended up as a beta tester because of the help and communication from DCS I've said enough Pete
yep, but I didn't know the undertone of this all...if this is still about the 'silence' of DCS regarding update policy then it's quite sad actualy... at least respect that they cannot say anything...it's business. Would you reveil your own plans for some prototype product? ... Everybody is watching DCS for TDS-4 ... Take care
Nice write-up in PC Mag. I noticed that Security Task Manager was also cited. Well deserved by both companies. Wilders should have also received a write-up with 5 stars. Cya, Rich
Developing software to a deadline is ok if you only develop simple applications and have dozens of programmers and aren't doing any research into undocumented areas of the Windows OS, but there are only two developers and one analyst here - we are small business, not a large corporation, and we simply cannot do everything that Dallen wants us to do, especially at the low prices we charge for our software. If we tell him an approximate release date but then are unable to meet it he endlessly criticises us for not releasing it, yet on the other hand if we don't give him a release date then he criticises us for lack of communication, and he does this relentlessly to the point where many are already declaring it as trolling. It has achieved nothing, and even if we do tell him an approximate release date, apart from putting added pressure on ourselves, what does that do other than satisfy his curiosity? Fortunately he's the only one who carries on in this manner, but it is frustrating and time consuming - we'd rather be working.
Wayne I can't hardly believe the quality products you three put out. it has to be stressful to the extreme. Myself I believe that you and your compatriates deserve a round of applause instead of someone always complaining about this or that is not released yet or why wasn't it released the second you said it was going to be. I do know that the majority of the members and guests are extremely grateful for the very hard and time consuming work you put into your products. I don't think even if I thought about it a while I could come up with anything negative to say to you or your staff. Keep up the good work and kudos to all of you that put so much time and effort out so we can be secure when we use our computers. bigc
No prbs Wayne, that was exactly what I was referring too or you give a date and you are "bounded" or you don't give a date and changelog because of the competition, not enough workload,... ... Do what you have to do, but just blow us away again with a nice product so everybody just shut the **** up you do a splendid job at DCS, take care
I for one, am very happy with PG. I am also glad you guys get good write-ups for TDS-3...and why anyone complains about when it's going to be upgraded, when its still the best anti-trojan out there is beyond me. I even undestand that you are a small business, and must dedicate your time in the best interests of the company. I was thinking about the comment that we 'the forum users' can't have everything we want, and I agree. However, I was also thinking that some things said, could economically help out diamondCS a great deal...like making PG less daunting...I know that some feel that PG is quite simple out of the box, but for me it was not <luckily I understood the basic concept and just how good it would be>. I had to spend about 2 days getting PG set up correctly, searching lots on google about the files that were running on my system, trying to find out what Global Hooks were, and generally having to sort through a mountain of junk on the internet whilst looking for the information....I can't help thinking that a brilliant program like PG would recieve a much quicker uptake, and find a much larger user base if this information was integrated into PG...ie much more user friendly. I really really like PG...but 2 days to learn/setup a program is a LOT of work (I've been using computers about 15 years).
the longer you use Processguard the faster the setup will be. If I Install Processguard then 15minutes after the second reboot my processguard is setup all right... Give it time, it's all for the better and you gotta try Tiny then ... I bet it will be easier every time to set it up Vikorr. Take care
I quite agree...I reformatted, and the second time around was much much easier...my point was that at first glance it's daunting/a lot of work...which puts people off trying it...which also means it's reputation suffers (amongst the friends of those people who didn't give it a chance)...which means uptake is even slower
yes, you are right about that Vikorr...Total "noobs" will encounter difficulties and prolly the same users that doesn't install service pack 2 because of the notifying popup blocker but what is difficult on learning mode? after that you can easily just put the four checks in general protection and basicaly you can be sure you're safer then before... I know some people that can't handle a firewall and they don't bother to install one...no matter what they end up, I need to format their disk every month and I'll give them everything they need yet they cannot handle it and uninstall it when I'm gone What do you do then?
Vikorr I understand and completely agree with you, and as developers one of our more important jobs is to simplify tasks to make things as easy as possible for the user. Unfortunately however there are limits to how simple some things can be made, and especially when it comes to advanced security software like ProcessGuard it's virtually impossible to simplify it to a point where you could say every user would find it as easy to use as say, Windows Notepad ... . However we feel that we've done a pretty good job with simplifying ProcessGuard, especially considering its architecture and the nature of its job. For example you can achieve complete protection against the installation of kernel-mode rootkit drivers simply by turning on one checkbox - literally just one click of the mouse, it doesn't get much simpler than that! On the other hand when it comes to determining if a new/unknown program is allowed to run or not, obviously the user must make that decision - this is just one example where simplification can only go so far. Best regards, Wayne
Hi Wayne, A few comments: 1) First I would like to echo big's comments about your company. It is a fantastic company and I have absolutely no problem recommending any and all of your products to my friends and acquaintences. 2) Given your limited resources, I can understand why it may be difficult for you to simplify PG further. With this in mind, I think that resources are overall better spent on PG than on TDS-4 from the point of view of what product does a better job of enhancing desktop security for a user. But I understand that you have a TDS-3 user base that has to be serviced. 3) I would personally be willing to pay annual fees to ensure continued development of products such as ProcessGuard. It, along with RegDefend are key "must-have" software on my machine. The only other products that I consider key are Kaspersky and Firefox and my financial tool. Kaspersky I am paying for annually (and very much happy to do this). FireFox is free, but I would be willing to pay. My financial tool charges me plenty up front. You have great products. I wish you and your company continued success. Rich
Unfortunately annual fee based pricing does seem to be the only viable way to maintain long term development of a product, once you have a large enough installed user base willing to buy in. I would buy in on that for PG. And I'll definately agree with Wayne on just how far you can go with simplifying security applications. Look at the person posting about Ad-Watch's automatic setting messing up PG's install. It's a little tiny check box on the Ad-Watch window with minimal documentation, but a heck of a lot of potential for tripping yourself up big time during installs and updates leaving you confused as to what's going wrong. You have to walk a fine line with powerful security features and "keeping it simple" to provide basic protection while accommodating advanced customization features at the same time. You can only "AOL" an app so much before your users have to start doing some learning on their own and making intelligent choices.
Wayne & friends, I realize that you are part of a small company and that my views may, at times, be overly critical. I'm guilty of being too persistant and will admit to that. Whether or not I'm "trolling" I'll leave up to you to decide; however, if you really believed that, I think you would have ended it long ago. Regarding the cost, personally I think it is a separate issue. You insist that we've received a great value. I don't disagree. Would I be opposed to a subscription fee? Honestly, I would not be opposed to the idea, but it would depend on the details. All I know is that I bought the "Action Pack" and I purchased it with the impression that I would soon be seeing a new version of TDS (version 4). I understand things have changed and you felt it would be best to develop PG. I think that was a good choice and I bought it as well. I am anxious to get TDS-4, like everyone else. I also feel that I've been patient. Even after taking into consideration the development of PG, I think it is overdue (relative to what I would have considered reasonable at the time I made the purchase). I say that only because I was under the impression (based on material found on your own website) that it would be released within a fairly short amount of time when I bought the package. I don't want to upset anyone by saying this, as it is just intended to give others a better understanding of my rationale. Insisting that you are unable to meet my expectations is either selling yourself short, or more likely, exaggerating my expectations. I never intended my criticism to be aimed at holding you to a release date and I thought that Wayne and I had a mutual understanding that that was the case. Maybe I misunderstood. My criticism was intended to improve the level of communication between DiamondCS and us. All I really want is an expected release date and when that changes (in discrete fashion, not on a continuum) then I want you to let us know, at your convenience. Maybe I'm asking too much when I say that I would like a monthly update. Something like, "Hey...due to changing circumstances TDS-4 won't be released when I thought it would in Jan. of 2005. It's looking more like mid June." It's not upsetting to learn that you are delaying the release in order to make TDS a better product. It is upsetting when we're left in the dark and told to shut up because it will be done when it's done. I understand how you may feel added pressure due to my harsh remarks and I want to apologize for that. Please know that the pressure I wanted to create was pressure for better communication and not for a rushed, inadequate product. Wayne, when you told me that replying to posts like mine actually takes away from your time developing and further delays the release I really thought about that. Wouldn't it save you time by updating this thread TDS-4 - read here first! once a month or so with the status rather than entering into many different threads to close them and defend yourself? In the end, that is all I really want.
Dallen and all, There is not any need to feed to any pressure. Wayne and Cie do know their job since at least 1986 and posting for posting or only goal putting unwanted pressure works just contra-everything. Read again all the many threads in which you contributed, the answers you got over the many times and think again. There are some nice threads in the various DiamondCS forums, wishlists for features to next versions; it would be much more constructive to go and sit thinking, reading the whole threads about what has been suggested and wished for and see what more can be added. We beta-team will be really really gratefull as well. Thanks for consideration.
Hi Dallen, Your viewpoint is certainly reasonable, as is Wayne's. When I first purchased TDS-3 (probably about two years ago), I had the impression that TDS-4 would be available shortly, but my interest in TDS-4 diminished substantially after ProcessGuard came out. My primary use of TDS nowadays is to clean up my friends' computers - not mine. But I understand the issues that other users might have with TDS-4's release date. Given that it was promised at one time (it probably would have been better not to announce it at all), then I think it would be reasonable for DCS to give their best guessimate at this time (even if it is 2006). DCS has limited resources, and has done an outstanding (superlative!) job delivering security products given their resources. When I consider that my primary security products (after an enormous amount of research and trials) are being delivered by such a small handful of developers, it really is amazing. Still, DCS needs to provide their TDS-3 with some level of information concerning TDS-4. I also think, that DCS should adjust their business model so that it conforms to the level of support that their products need (e.g some sort of subscription model). But it is Wayne's company - not mine. I hope that Wayne can give you some information, which I believe you are somewhat entitled to given the way TDS-4 was announced. Hopefully, past mistakes will not be repeated, and each product will stand on its own, without the need to look towards any potential future version. All software companies have dificulties managing expectations, so hopefully this situation can be ironed out to the satisfaction of all parties involved. As for me, I am more than happy with what I got (KAV, PG, RegDefend) and would be happy to pay for more of the same. Good luck Dallen. I hope you are DCS can reach some level of mutual satisfactory exchange of information. No one is at fault. It is the nature of software development. Rich
Hi Wayne Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I understand that PG 'the program' is as simplified as it can be, and I have no problems with that. I do think it a fantastic program, and it is a compliment to you guys that such few people can produce something the big guys haven't even comprehended yet. My point was simply that adding a bit more readily available information would make things easier from our (the users) end when setting it up for the first time...not changing anything about the program itself. .... I seem to be saying the same thing in two threads, sorry about that
