Still on schedule for release today?

Since this seems to be the current "Bash Infragistics thread" I might as well toss in my .02 worth. I have been a huge fan of the toolset going back to the 2006 volume releases. We have upgraded every year and for the most part have been happy with the toolset. I do believe Infragistics is slipping though and if we didn't have 50+ web sites running under the toolset we would most likely switch as well. IMO it seems Infragistics hears what we developers want but they do not listen very well. For example, I have been BEGGING for a light weight web combo and we still don't have it. Instead we have "search engine friendly" controls. Personally I could give a rats a$$ if the controls are search engine friendly or not. We are now paying more and getting less since Infragistics dropped support for the .net framework version 1.1. (We will be updating those sites to the 3.5 framework and 2008 version of the toolset this year).

We have upgraded our licenses to the 2008 volume releases but unless we get some really great stuff in Vol 2 and Vol 3 we won't be upgrading to 2009.

ZackJones said:

Since this seems to be the current "Bash Infragistics thread"

My pet peeve: controls that don't conform to the MS event order convention.

ZackJones said:

I could give a rats a$$ if the controls are search engine

Sometimes that one is important.

I too believe that they dont listen too well. I have witnessed a huge cry for a deacent webcombo in 2007 yet I was dissapointed to see that side stepped (or apparantly so) with the image thingy. Now the image thingy is not too bad and can be useful, but for building enterprise web apps a solid light weight webcombo should really have been number 1. Who decides what to build and when? Customers did not (as far as I can tell) cry for the image scrolly thingy. But lets not bash IG too much, they did listen about the splitter and window and it does seem OK. In my scenario I just could not wait for IG to play catch up as other vendors appeared to have controls that were more relevant for enterprise app development. However I am keeping a very close eye on their Silverlight development as it seems to be a very promising platform. Hopefully they will develop controls that will allow developers to create true RIA.

Michael Josiah said:

I too believe that they dont listen too well.

This is a glass half full.  In my experience, when it comes to responding to customer feedback, IG does a much better job than most.  (For comparison, try Micro$oft.)

OTOH, there's an awful lot that I wish they'd gotten right the first time.  The controls themselves are great, but the learning curve is unnecessarily steep due to the [non-] documentation, and the lack of an integrated search engine.

my 2 cents...

once again I'm a little disappointed with the new release. starting to wonder why I'm paying a subscription fee when it seems so little gets added or even fixed in each release. I desperately need a better ASP.NET scheduler component but when I ask if it will be improved I got a soft maybe!

unless we get some substantial and exciting stuff in the next couple of releases I'm jumping ship to go with the T-vendor. they currently have a beta of a scheduler that looks really awesome.

Michael Josiah said:

I personally think it would be quite helpful for IG to know which competitor has a feature set that we find appealing.

For purposes of this discussion, it is necessary to discuss the features, but not the companies.

As Howard has shown us, there are appropriate forums for the "Which is better?" discussion.

Edward McCarroll said:

Michael, Zach, [anyone]

There is a grey area between comparing features and promoting competitors, and in my (never-humble) opinion, this thread has gone further than I think appropriate.  I would suggest that the grey area has been deeply penetrated when someone states:

  "<ThisCompetitor> { has | is | does } <ThusAndSuch>."

I would prefer statements in the form:

   "Competing companies { have | are | do } <ThusAndSuch>."

Statements of the former type might be more appropriately put into emails or private messages to the IG staff members who have so conspicuously contributed to this thread.

I disagree on this point. I think it depends on the context. We all know who the three big name competitors are, its no secret. I personally think it would be quite helpful for IG to know which competitor has a feature set that we find appealing. This allows them to investigate, research and see if its something they want to include in their own product line. I think the line has to be drawn when people try to PROMOTE other vendors which I unintentionally might have done. I dont think we should be shy when mentioning other competitors I just think we need to do it in an appropriate manner. That aside lets not get distracted from the side topic. IG what are your thoughts on my previous comments regarding customer expection etc.

Michael, Zach, [anyone]

There is a grey area between comparing features and promoting competitors, and in my (never-humble) opinion, this thread has gone further than I think appropriate.  I would suggest that the grey area has been deeply penetrated when someone states:

  "<ThisCompetitor> { has | is | does } <ThusAndSuch>."

I would prefer statements in the form:

   "Competing companies { have | are | do } <ThusAndSuch>."

Statements of the former type might be more appropriately put into emails or private messages to the IG staff members who have so conspicuously contributed to this thread.

It certainly wasn't my intention to promote Infragistics' competition. Apologies to those that felt slighted by my post.