BleepingComputer.com: Freeware Vs Shareware ?

You always hear you get what you paid for. This compels the question: Is sharewares superior than freewares? Thank you. YOYO.

Hmmmmm.. that kinda depends on what you're looking for and what you've found. IMO, shareware is usually better. A lot of freeware does only one thing, or, not enuff of other things. Some shareware programs are good, some are a lot like most freeware. I like programs that do what I want and can do more if I need it to.
Well, that's probably clear as mud..

No - what you pay and what you get are 2 separate factors (although, at times they may be related).

Also, the labels "freeware" and "shareware" are a bit too broad to make this generalization accurate.

And, it's also a subjective decision. What's best for you isn't necessarily what I need.

For example - people will argue that the freeware browser Firefox is the best browser available (FWIW - I agree).

But, if you require ActiveX for what you do on the web - then it's not the best for you. Nor is it the best if the sites that you visit are optimized for IE (and not for Firefox).

Finally, Open Source has made it feasible to develop quality free software based on the contributions of many folks - and is much cheaper than development costs associated with commercial programs.

This post has been edited by usasma: 14 October 2006 - 09:49 AM

There is an essential factor that makes shareware more appropriate software for me. This is a responsibility. Because if your pay money for something, the manufacturer is responsible for the quality of product you purchased and in case of breakage you can demand compensation from him. This sense of responsibility forces manufacturers to produce more qualitative products.
However there is a bunch of very good freeware products such as Opera, VLC and so

This post has been edited by Kevin_D: 18 October 2006 - 06:10 AM

@ Kevin , pls note that the software manufacturer
is not completely responsible for the quality of the
products . in general , users are not compensated
for any losses .

pls see EULA ( End User License Agreement ) by
the manufacturers ...

With all due respect I so disagree. I have seen countless "share ware programs" that were so much worse than there free ware counterparts. One expamlp off the top of my head. The makeing of transparent windows. Seen countless programs wanting 50 bucks for that. Um glass 2 k is free, been out for sometime now and works just as well. Right now I use winroll. Again free program. I right click on the very top of any open window and it rolls up out of my way. Yea works with all browsers as well including firefox. Middle click at the very top of it and it turns trasparent.

Before you go shell out money for a program look around and see what you can find free first. You may be surprised to find a free aplication that does what you want it to do for no cost. Rember its not there computer its yours. As long as they make there money thats all they worry about. Prime expamle. Bill gates will charge ya some money to use his software. Lynix is free and more and more people are turning to the free version.

The difference between freeware and shareware is that the writer insists upon getting paid for shareware (and does things to ensure this).

But, there's good freeware and there's good shareware. The point is that there's no substitute for actually trying the software out.

I guess it is all relative! There are good and bad on both side. Fortunately, there are many-many great freewares(Google, and by Sysinternal and Merjin for example) that I would consider much superior than some of the sharewares available in the market place. Yes, freewares is a luxury made possible by the generosity of open sources. I concur, It is their contribution that made it feasible for the development of many quality free softwares that we enjoy! Thanks. YOYO.

This post has been edited by MGBY: 07 November 2006 - 02:23 AM

It's sad but true that most of the programs I shelled out big bucks for I ended up throwing away when I discovered smaller, faster, freeware programs that just did the job better.

I think maybe it's because much freeware seems to be written by enthusiasts - by people like Mark Russinovich at Sysinternals - who seem to try hard to write concise, elegant, bug-free code.

It's written, in other words, by people who, although they may not realize it, are in a real sense artists with a sense of pride in their work as opposed to employees or mere cogs in a system who may even be under orders to bloat their code since buyers tend to equate 'bigger' with 'better.'

But that's just me.

Cheers,

scratcher.

usasma, on Oct 18 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

Actually that's not quite accurate, the author of the shareware will ask for a donation for the use of their product, and if you make a donation you will be eligible for whatever up dates are available, this is the basic difference between freeware and shareware.

Freeware, shareware, and retail porgrams are all alike in the sense that you can still buy/pick a turkey. You need to research what you are going to use. Like others here I use freeware and shareware without any problems, but I was very selective about what I added.

dc3: Seems like you are an experienced user, how do you discern which(free or share) software is considered "good", or is considered "bad", please help me out?? What criterias do you follow in your decision in selecting a software for your personal use? Thank you . YOYO.

There are some tests you can apply to ANY downloadable application:

1. Does it come from a reputable and known source? Mozilla and Google, for example, have been around for some time, and have a good reputation.
2. What do other users say about it? Doing some basic research on Google will soon determine if it both functions well and does not contain, for example, spyware (as do many happy/fun/cute applications do). Usually a good application will receive recommendations from recognized authorities (PC World, for example). Software reviews, while subjective, are usually good sources of information for making a decision.
3. Ask BC members, who are never reticent about recommending or panning software.
4. Does the freeware also have a paid version? If so, what are the functional differences (if any), and are they enough to warrant the cost? Free versions are often as good, from a functional perspective, as the paid version, but without some of the extras, bells and whistles.
5. CNET's download.com, for example, tests downloads for spyware before they are made available, and often has reviews from both editors and users. A good rating by 50, 000 people would be a indication that the application is what you want, even though you choose to download the file from the manufacturer's site.

Regards,
John

I agree with John, those are good guide lines. I tend to place my trust in members that have demonstrated their technical prowess and won't pan something simply because they can't figure out how to use it.

I also tend to look at download sites that have good reputations such as majorgeeks and pcworld, they tend to cull the poor products.

This post has been edited by jgweed: 08 November 2006 - 07:06 PM

Freeware is generally supported by voluntary donations. Shareware may do this, or may time limit itself.

Regardless, these people devote their time and knowledge to giving us a quality product. If you find such a program, I'd highly recommend that you make a donation - it will be deeply appreciated!

FWIW - some of them haven't even thought about it, so you may have to bring a "donations link" to their attention (I've done this with a couple of authors myself).