neonb

Soooo... The policy is that "all donators separately and independently happen to receive a version without a watermark, and this is not official even though everyone (for example, dhjohns just there) states it as a rule and a fact"? I mean, bigmuscle is certainly entitled to creating whatever licensing terms he wants, but why would anyone want something like this? What's wrong with openly stating the reward for paying? The current system is confusing until you dive into the forums for stories about donations, and accomplishes... what, that no one has to admit the full software is paid? Is it because silently watermarked freeware (and a "secret" private full version) would look better to the visitor than straight-up paid software? Really, I'm interested.

Hi! You might want to at least sticky MDJ's post that jaclaz linked to (http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174355-aero-glass-for-win81-14/?p=1107168), it's exactly what new users like johne53 and I would want to see when looking for information about symbol files. About the instructions... The guide is comprehensive enough in explaining how the software uses symbols and what they are, but the link to Microsoft could be accompanied by those couple of lines from MDJ's post. And it definitely wouldn't hurt to have a reminder on the front page or downloads to "remember to check the guide", even if it should be obvious to the user. As long as there are direct download links on the front page, no mention of possibly not working out of the box, and no link to the guide, you shouldn't be too judgemental when accusing users of ignorance when they are surprised that the program doesn't work. By the way, in the guide, you recommend that unless the reader knows technical jargon and how to edit the registry they shouldn't install this program. Still, you recommend the installer which means that no registry editing is probably necessary, and the only techical terms in MDJ's mini-guide are download, BAT file, copy and paste. It really isn't that hard or technical, provided that the information is available to the user in the first place. With small additions like these to the instructions, the process of getting the software up and running would be a lot easier for many people. Which would in turn mean more donations when users want to get rid of the watermark, after the user has seen that the software works. Even if the purpose is just educational, you probably wouldn't be opposed to that And I don't mean to bash your work, bigmuscle, it's really cool, but all this comes across as a lot more difficult than it is.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, dhjohns. That page doesn't mention anything about differences in the software when the user hasn't donated – actually it doesn't imply that donating would change anything at all. It only talks about motivating the developer and a thank you email. So no, everything's not on that page. Your post right there has more information than the page. I'm sorry, I like the software, but a lot of the communication could be better.