What's in a name huh? I'm in the same position as you contriver87 (I think I purchased in 2004... thereabouts anyway). It seems the angle from IPS is we had rights to download all future versions of IP.Board and they didn't like that so they named it IPS4 (see what they did there?) - no more "board" entitlement.
They ripped out the "core" too. The old board was standalone software but now they would have to "give us" the core in order to "give us" the forums.
Basically, they win, we lose.
But isn't it annoying when people not affected by this issue keep defending it? This should be a perpetual/lifetime licence holders only thread
Thanks Lindy, I appreciate all is not as straightforward as it might seem from the outside looking in but I still fail to see how "shoehorning" and server tweaks can be so difficult for your talented group of staff.
I'm sure IPS will do very well and won't miss the less than 1-2% that might give up on the product - and I'm sure the majority of that minority will stay with you (it was less than 3% earlier - are we shrinking that quickly?).
All I ever needed was plain and simple forum software. Gallery, Blogs and Content all proved wasted expense for me as my users just weren't interested in them - they just wanted somewhere to make simple posts. So, I didn't need or want all the bells and whistles that have been added over the years and to some extent I have been sorry to see IPS become "bloated" and branched as much as it has.
Thank you for the great software. The last 10 years have been a blast but, personally, I won't be taking you up on your offer.
Yes, it is disappointing and I'm probably going to say farewell to IPS but, as a matter of interest, what accommodations need "shoehorning" into the software and systems? I'm guessing you're referring to the billing/client side of IPS' system and not to the product?
Beyond setting up a unique usergroup, I can't help thinking it shouldn't be too difficult to accommodate less then 3% of a huge customer base.
Quotes. I've skimmed through this too long topic and, frankly, can't understand many of the complaints (meaning I literally don't understand the issues).
My only concern is that I can no longer see who made the original post or click on a snapback to read a post in it's original context. I don't like to just assume a quote is unedited by the person quoting it.
Oh I know exactly what the policy is - I had it all explained to me in a ticket last year. I was just saying how IMO it is all very confusing.
And if it needs support to explain it like I was a 5 year old, or three paragraphs to boil it down to "the short of it", then it's really not 'simple' is it? Heck, if it was simple topics such as this one wouldn't exist :)
I usually find when people say "with all due respect" they actually mean the opposite, however I digress... I didn't say people use the shoutbox as a chatroom in my experience. I did say people use it precisely for which it was intended - to make and leave 'shouts'. They do not wait for a designated meeting time to use it as a 'live' chatroom - they login, they read the forums, they make or reply to topics, they 'shout', they logout. Simple. No abuse whatsoever.
Just because you may have personal experience of a shoutbox being abused doesn't mean every shoutbox is abused in the same way. You clearly dislike the shoutbox and that is an opinion you are entitled too but you needn't bang the drum so loud because some people, some communities, like it and want to see it maintained.