Matt has some issues with both Manifold itself and the quality of its online help (or lack there of; love the redirect to an IP address on the forums, quite professional).
The reason we bought Manifold was to have a GIS in which to create nice maps of our large datasets in an easy way and serve them out to the web. While there were plenty of warnings that Manifold’s website was full of hyperbole & BS, I choose not to heed them.
Matt concludes that open source GIS (uDig/QGIS/Mapserver/MapGuide) might be a better choice in the long run for most users looking to escape the ESRI stack. This probably regulates Manifold to an Opera like status among GIS users. A fanatical fan base, decent product, but an also ran in the marketplace.
83 responses so far ↓
1
Matt Priour
// Dec 1, 2006 at 10:55 pm
I strongly doubt that I have the power to relegate anyone to anywhere in the marketplace. However, unless something truly amazing happens, I’m not going to be a Manifold fanboy anytime soon.
BTW, you should really read some of the documentation. Are help files REALLY the place for attacks and put downs to your competitors? Or the place to spout off about why the technology you suppoert is so superior to other options in the marketplace?
Examples:
Very long anti-MrSID page
Importing Shapefiles. Around 50% of this page is just “Why shapefiles are evil” garbage. Leave your rants out of the documentation.
I already bought the software, help me use it. Don’t preach to me about why it is go great, show me how I can use it in a way that I’ll think it is great too.
2
James Fee
// Dec 2, 2006 at 9:04 am
Hmm, I’m not a big MrSID fan either. Maybe I need to take a look at this Manifold stuff.
3
Chris C.
// Dec 2, 2006 at 11:36 am
Tee hee, James you do make me laugh, at least I hope you’re joking about the Opera gag, otherwise ignorance is bliss!
As for MrSid - the ability to make/export ECWs in Manifold (included as standard) makes them redundant for any images I need.
4
Fish&Game
// Dec 2, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I think James is being kind with the Opera reference as Opera is at least the 3rd place browser (though Mac users might claim Safari). Manifold is probably not even in the top five of sales and definitely not in the top 10 in installed base.
5
Manifold User
// Dec 2, 2006 at 4:26 pm
How can you be critical of Manifold, but you say you have never used it? Seems hipicritical to me.
6
James Fee
// Dec 2, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Hypocritical? How so?
I’ve never said anything about Manifold the product. I’ve never even seen it running before. So because I cannot try out the product (paying nearly $1000 blindly is a little to risky in my book) no matter how much more valuable the manifold website says it is.
The tone of the site and most users (I’ve learned quite a bit about the program from some level headed Manifold users who have given me tours of the product using screen video capture products) of the product tells me pretty much all I need to know.
7
Manifold User
// Dec 2, 2006 at 4:33 pm
You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The price is less than $300.
8
James Fee
// Dec 2, 2006 at 4:36 pm
$1,000? Where did I get that price? Users say $295, but it costs $895 to get the functionality I need. Sure that is much less than $5,000 ArcGIS prices, but way too much to take a risk on.
9
James Fee
// Dec 2, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Woa, sorry about that guys. I screwed up the database there for a second and all the post dates went back to 01 Jan 1900 at 12:00 am.
10
tj
// Dec 2, 2006 at 5:58 pm
actually, its really $575 for everything. You might not really need database administrator in practice, and certainly not for a try-and-buy situation. Its mostly for large multi-user set ups.
Also, you have 30 days to return the product and get your money back so there is no risk. I would think if you just sprung for the $295 version you could quickly see if it was sufficient for you, or send it back. But, if you intend to send it back, I think you should probably get the Enterprise edition too so you can link with Oracle Spatial and see if its any good.
And, don’t forget, you get all the tools in addition to the IMS.
Now, truly I’m not being a wise guy when I say this, but I’m not sure where you are getting ArcGIS Desktop with all the extensions* (minus geostatistical analyst), and ArcIMS for $5000. I thought both those packages together are around $24,000. Are you getting some kind of special deal as a BP? Don’t forget too, your license fee for those two packages are probably $3,000 a year, right?
*special caveat: obviously, its never really apples-to-apples as they are different products. For instance, Manifold does not have a model builder, and ESRI does not fuzzy logic built into the database or spatial SQL. But hopefully everyone sort of gets the drift of the whole extention purposes.
11
David Lovelace
// Dec 2, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Manifold needs patience, deep reading of the manual and experimentation. I found the learning tools from http://www.gisadvisor.com a great help. Manifold hansomely rewarded me for my effort and I’m constantly amazed at its functionality/price ratio. It is still not perfect but evolving fast and is responsive to its user base. Back in the summer I found that a Manifold upgrade caused its GPS console to not recognise a new GPS unit I had just bought. As a field geographer this was a major blow. I could have pulled my hair and wailed to the world about how bad the Manifold I/O was. (That was my initial reaction). However I calmed down, detailed the issue to the development team who almost immediately acknowledged the problem and within weeks the next upgrade included revised code for the GPS console which worked perfectly for my unit. Its true that Manifold does not suffer fools lightly and if you are a fool in a hurry you may get cross, bang your little fists and write silly comments on a blog. It would be a shame if such comments turn up in a search and put people off Manifold. Its a sad fact that we all have to contend with an increasing deluge of foolish bloggers reducing the signal to noise ratio of www information content. David Lovelace, Herefordshire UK
12
jisanidiot
// Dec 2, 2006 at 10:32 pm
you dont have a clue on what true gis analysis is. If youve done any gis analysis youd know manifold is by far the best choice. esri cant do even 1/10th the analysis that manifold can do and that is being quite kind.
13
James Fee
// Dec 2, 2006 at 10:45 pm
tj, thanks for the heads up. I was a little confused with all those options. Yea, I does look like the Enterprise version will work best. As for my $5000 cost, I just pulled that out of my ass. On further reflection, I’d need ArcGIS Editor (about $6,000) to edit oracle spatial (lets just assume we are direct connecting and leave SDE out), then spatial analyst which is about 2.5k so that would be $7.5k which is about 10 times the equivalent Manifold cost (assuming both can do the exact same thing). ESRI gives me more cartographic tools and as far as I can tell better 3D analysis tools (but the Manifold website is very confusing so I can’t tell it there is a 3D analyst type tool). The IMS stuff really doesn’t appeal to me so I guess you could just say it is just extra fluff for me.
I’m curious what other extensions you’d need for ArcGIS other than Spatial Analyst to get that kind of functionality with ArcGIS. The refund is nice, but if I have to go through the hassle of getting $500+ approved for purchase, I’m not returning it no matter how crappy it is.
Of course it would make my request easier to have examples created by my GIS department using Manifold to get such a request, rather than screen shots from a marketing webpage. It is Manifold choice to offer up no demo and that is fine, but there are many like me who can’t or won’t bite without one.
jisanidiot: I’m not sure why Manifold users have to personally attack me every time I am critical of Manifold’s business model. I won’t respond to the validity of your claims in regards to ESRI and GIS analysis because I think everyone can make up their own mind on that without my help. As I’ve said again and again, I’ve got no opinion on what Manifold can or cannot do as I’ve never had a chance to use it. My only opinion is on the website and the marketing that Manifold seems to do. For over a year I happily ignored Manifold, not giving it a second though. But since then Manifold users need to respond to almost every critical post about ESRI/Autodesk/Open Source/ETC with “Manifold is better”. You’ve taken this to me and my only method of observation is the Manifold website and the actions of users.
I really don’t care about Manifold the product. If someone wants to start up a Manifold blog, I’d subscribe in a second to learn more about the product outside of the Manifold controlled website forum (much like I know many subscribe to my blog to get ESRI commentary outside of ESRI’s controlled environment). Heck I’d add it into Planet Geospatial in a second if one such site existed. But no jisanidiot, users like you troll around here leaving crappy comments and personal attacks that only validates my opinion more. TJ at least takes the time to point out problems with my logic and I learn from that, maybe Manifold would be a more interesting proposition if more users where like him over there.
14
gratci
// Dec 2, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Manifold can do more than any other GIS system at 100 times its cost.
End of story.
15
James Fee
// Dec 2, 2006 at 10:53 pm
gratci: maybe, I can’t tell. The Manifold website is suspect and the users are combative. I’m not exactly jumping at the bit here. Manifold is probably the only mainstream GIS system I have never even sampled before. I’ve used or tried everything from ESRI/MapInfo/Autodesk/Intergraph to Maptitude/Cadcorp/CARIS to uDig/QGIS/GRASS. There isn’t much I haven’t seen or tried (I’m a sucker for downloading software), but alas Manifold has never graced my computer screen.
I use what my clients use, being a consultant, so maybe one day the Manifold train will enter my world of DoD/High Ed/State & Local Government, but for now it hasn’t.
16
tj
// Dec 3, 2006 at 5:36 am
hmmm. Well, I have to think about what ESRI offers in ArcGIS editor. Perhaps network analyst, but that might be part of the basic ESRI suite anyway. Manifold does routing: although not as good as ESRI at the moment (turn restrictions, etc..).
Also, reading things from Excel natively, and about 80 other formats. I don’t know if that requires another ESRI extension. You mentioned the terrain stuff, so I think that 3D Analyst would be another option. 3D Analyst does some things Manifold doesn’t, but there’s also a vice-versa issue. I wouldn’t necessarily say that ArcGIS is way better in this area. But, it is faster in 3D stuff, and alittle more mature.
As for cartographic tools, yes you are right. ArcGIS is much better. I think Manifold will probably make another initiative to make better cartography in the future.
Its important to realize too that since they are different, some of those differences are significant. So, while Manifold has routing, if you have to route school busses and do some kind of sophisticated traveling salesman stuff, then you are out of luck. Its just a better decision to use ESRI. Maybe one copy to do the routing, and then 30 Manifold clients to do other stuff
The forum is open, and not overly controlled by Manifold. I hear there are some other blogs starting up. But, at the moment its the place where 90%+ of Manifold posters reside.
The Manifold train is actually in the world you talk about, but usually for one-off solutions. For instance, I know of some defense related work where Manifold is used to monitor infrastructure and log situations. I don’t think they have any interest in cartography, or even GIS analysis. Basically, they have a one-dimensional application that needs to get deployed to lots of people, so they use Manifold at $245 to do it. Some consultants are even just using the $100 runtime version and creating a .dll to do one of these one-off solutions.
However, you are right to stay guarded in the line of work you are in. As a consultant, you are not responsible for pushing Manifold into anywhere (thats what Manifold is responsible to do). You need to focus on low hanging fruit.
17
geoviz
// Dec 3, 2006 at 3:25 pm
tj, I have to agree with James. It’d be great if more Manifold user were like you. It’d paint a much nicer picture of the software.
Frankly, any software company that includes direct attacks on other competitors in their marketing puts me off. And if it is so obvious that a lot of users incorporate the exact same attitude in forums and blogs, a lot of people won’t even give it a second thought. If you’ve got a good product, there’s no need to badmouth your competitors, and you won’t convince people to switch software with comments like jisanidiot’s and gratci’s.
Let’s face it (and this has been said before), you need to find a software (or a combination) that does fits your needs and business situation. There will never be THE one solution that suits all.
Please, Mainfold users, stop the abuse and add some value to this blog. And if you feel the need to talk down other software, please open up a separate blog.
18
tj
// Dec 3, 2006 at 4:05 pm
geoviz:
thanks. The reality is, life is too short to be uncomplimentary. But, I don’t think that is a fair assessment of Manifold users. Its like anything else, a handful of people can spoil the whole thing. I bet if you did some kind of SQL query (can’t resist pushing SQL as a Manifold user), and did a GROUP BY [username], I bet you’d find the flames on this blog are really only from 5 or 6 people. The forum has so many really nice and patient people.
As for why Manifold does what they do, that is another story. Part of it is the gimmicky nature of it. The other part of it is to arm their users. You may not believe this, but I have found it to be true, if you mention Manifold to a group of people who are legacy users, you could also get your head bit off. Sound like a conspiracy, I know, but it really does exist. I know of a few people who have had their careers messed with. I could give you a “names are changed to protect the innocent” description of a number of people.
Also, just think about the MrSid rant. James seemed to like that. I don’t want to speak for you James, but in guessing why you liked it, it was probably because it validated many of the feelings you have about LizardTech. And, if MrSid was FORCED upon you, you would now have some pretty good information to fight back with. But lets forget James Fee right now, who is a seasoned veteran with ESRI products. What if you were 2 years into your career and someone tried to Force MrSid on you (I’m not trying to use Mr Sid as a whipping boy, just an example of the many kinds of rants that are in the help file). Well, now, even at only 2 years into your career you have some really solid talking points to articulate your case.
Plus, read the rant on Networking and I think you will agree with their points. Also, the reality is, the shapefile is a stupid format with the .prj file. Just a result of a poor initial design (IMHO). Well, if you are having to deal with that, by reading the Help manual, you now can articulate some of the problem issues with the format and why storing geometry in a database is a good idea, while encapsulating the coordinate system into the geometry.
OK, this is looking like a Dimitri rant, it went far too long. Sorry about that, I’ll stop now.
19
Chris C.
// Dec 3, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I think you’re being a bit naive towards James - he likes to bait the more extreme Manifold users on his blog by commentating on Manifold - the product and the company - when he has no personal knowledge of the program and whether the boasts they make on their website are true or not. Why else is he referring to Matt’s blog?
If he’s so disinterested in Manifold why does he continually post about it with regularity?
20
Brian Timoney
// Dec 3, 2006 at 6:42 pm
For contrast in publicity/user satisfaction, consider the $279 Global Mapper package–
http://www.globalmapper.com/
Its strength is raster/vector files conversions and reprojections, as well as 3D visualizations (terrain with draped imagery, etc.).
Never heard of it before I started working with the petroleum industry–and yet every shop seems to have someone using it because 1) its ease of use and 2) it permits non-GIS power users to deal with GIS data.
Most important, everyone who uses the program likes it.
In short, you can create successful software just by making it easy for new users to do a couple of essential tasks well.
BT
21
James Fee
// Dec 3, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I post about Manifold so I can learn more. Just like I do about MapGuide, Mapserver, PostGIS and ESRI.
I have no idea if what Manifold says is true or not, I can only go off of what others says. Matt seems pretty neutral to me and I’ve been reading his blog with interest ever since he said he bought a copy of Manifold. Now he’s worked with it and posted back on what happened. That would seem to be what blogging is about.
If the fact I get my Manifold news from Matt means my world is small, by all means let me know where else I can look.
22
David Davis
// Dec 3, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Good call on Global Mapper Brian. Our company uses it and we swear by it.
As for Manifold, I decided long ago that it wasn’t for us. The program is more about negatives, rather than positives. Sure ESRI is positive to the point where it makes me sick sometimes, but at least they try.
That said James, I’m an GeoMedia guy so I think you all are nuts.
On shapefiles, yes they are far from perfect, but it is the closes “interchange format” that we have between platforms. With shapefiles I’m pretty much assured of anyone reading my work. Maybe one day we’ll use GML or something similar, but for now it is shapefiles.
Love the blog btw James. The commentators here are mostly brilliant with their posts. I’m amazed with quality of people who read this blog and I’ve learned so much while reading it.
23
AlbertW
// Dec 3, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Look, lets just put this Manifold is cheaper than ArcGIS to a rest. Manifold can be cheaper as long as you don’t need tech support.
ArcGIS ArcView - $1,500 (though many can get it cheaper, lets go with the “right off the street” price)
That price includes 1 year of tech support (unlimited email and phone support)
Manifold 7x Professional - $295
Tech support is free using those forums which seem quite, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt any question posted is answered quickly. If you want email support it will run you $195 for ten incidents or $295 for ONE telephone incident where the talk time cannot exceed 30 minutes. Are you kidding me? I can call ESRI as many times as I want to help me get my work done.
Say what you will about ESRI being buggy crap software and Manifold being perfect, but for large cities like mine, we couldn’t afford those prices for as many issues as we run into with our software (both ESRI and Autodesk). I’ll take the professional support any day.
Now if you respond that Manifold isn’t designed for enterprise clients and is for small or individual organizations then maybe I’ll bite that those costs are find (lower initial price and get it back with tech support), but I’d rather pay more up front.
24
mdsumner
// Dec 3, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Yea, I does look like the Enterprise version will work best. As for my $5000 cost, I just pulled that out of my ass.
Thanks for the laugh, I do enjoy some of your comedy James but today you have really excelled.
25
James R
// Dec 4, 2006 at 3:21 am
There are some more ‘moderate’ Manifold users out here and I include myself as one of them. Being a local government user initially my first introduction to GIS was ESRI. After a while I got bored of the software quality and the cost…I was just about to go down the SDE / Oracle / ArcEditor route until I realised all the hidden licence costs! (When you start talking about connecting your planning system to SDE you’ve got another whole host of licence fees to pay!) When you buy into ESRI, no one tells you that you need Arc Editor to interact with SDE. For that matter, no one’s ever been able to tell me what SDE is for!
Anyway, I swapped to Cadcorp SIS. Being a UK user this is bliss because of the native support for Ordnance Survey data. It’s a small firm and you can get things done easily….support is good. It’s got the best digitising tools on the market which is why all the main datacapture companies in the UK use Cadcorp.
I stumbled across Manifold a couple of years ago and use it extensively for stuff I can’t do in Cadcorp. For instance generating convex hulls around map features which have been aggregated according to various attibutes…achieved by 3 lines of SQL code in Manifold (and a bit of head scratching!). It’s much touted Oracle connectivity is good, but not as good as Cadcorps. It doesn’t do dynamic area of interest windowing which Cadcorp has been doing for a few years now. Table managment in Manifold is far superior and easier to use then in Cadcorp. The table transform tools make it a breeze to adjust data in columns, and that’s before you get into ‘Active Columns’ etc.
Manifold supports unlimited ECW compression. I used it to tile and composite 290 Ordnance Survey scanned map tiles. Initially this generated a 6Gb raster file which Manifold then compressed to ECW. Facilities like this have saved me from having to blow something like £5k on ER Mapper.
Manifold is not the ‘best GIS’ system. I don’t think one exists. It provides me with an additional tool set at a rediculously low price. Yes their marketing tone puts me off a bit and a lot of Manifold users are critical of this. I don’t use Manifold as my corporate GIS because I like the secure feeling that you can phone up Cadcorp to resolve problems. The fact that you have this support is built into the price of the GIS and you have to accept that. Yes Manifold probably does a lot more that our Cadcorp product at a fraction of the price (although some of it not as well as Cadcorp) but without tech support for say running intranet sites, Manifold is in danger of remaining a secondary product that people pick up on to use its neat tools.
26
Paolo Corti
// Dec 4, 2006 at 3:58 am
Hello James
“On further reflection, I’d need ArcGIS Editor (about $6,000) to edit oracle spatial (lets just assume we are direct connecting and leave SDE out), then spatial analyst which is about 2.5k so that would be $7.5k which is about 10 times the equivalent Manifold cost (assuming both can do the exact same thing).”
how can you leave SDE out, you still need a license with direct connect?
Or did it change something in 9.2?
cheers
27
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 5:48 am
Paolo, you are right. I did leave either SDE or the Interoperability extension off to connect directly to Oracle Spatial.
28
Paolo Corti
// Dec 4, 2006 at 6:02 am
AFAIK with the Interoperability extension you can NOT edit data.
So an ArcSde license would be still necessary in an editing scenario.
29
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 6:59 am
Sure, but since we are in the weeds here, one can export and import data with Oracle Spatial using Interop so it is possible.
As I said above, it is way too hard to estimate costs with these two applications as you can’t get a similar functionality at any price point between the two.
As I’ve said again and again, GIS professionals need to choose platforms that best meet their needs. At least with Manifold you cannot do that without forking over money (money back or not).
30
MarkM
// Dec 4, 2006 at 7:22 am
Manifold users = sensitive.
I have never used the product but I would love to try it out. Like James I think I’ve tried everything but this one.
31
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 11:36 am
Well I don’t care too much about Manifold users as they don’t really matter that much if I am going to get my company to buy Manifold. The lack of a demo that can be installed and small time feel of the marketing materials is what hurts it for me.
32
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 11:42 am
Let me just add a couple of Manifold users have been a huge help, but screen shots and demo videos are not enough for me to get a PR to buy a product.
33
rmcculley
// Dec 4, 2006 at 2:12 pm
It amazes me that there isn’t a demo. If Manifold was really serious about trying to increase their market share, then let people see the software in action.
I’ll echo the comments from above. I’ve tried just about everything. Except Manifold.
Not to Manifold: Until I can try it, I’m not going to buy it. I gaurantee you that I’m not the only one who feels that way either.
34
Chris C.
// Dec 4, 2006 at 2:42 pm
What really amazes me is you believe that they are not increasing market share because of a lack of a free demo.
I work with a variety of clients and consultants and I am finding more and more are using the software. The user forum has seen its numbers increase significantly in the year and a half I’ve been using it.
Manifold have issued a free upgrade to Manifold 7 users, which hardly a sign of them needing to fleece existing customers to keep their ship floating.
All the signs I can see indicate that they are doing very well without a free demo - so why waste money that can be reinvested into development?
35
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 2:44 pm
How is offering a demo going to cut into their revenue?
36
Chris C.
// Dec 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Are you saying there are no significant costs associated with issuing a demo?
37
mdsumner
// Dec 4, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Exactly. Producing a demo takes engineering focus away from developing new features. End of story. Never mind a few publicly vocal complainers, if they aren’t actively requesting the company puts effort into a demo they can hardly complain when that “feature” is not being supported. The company surely knows better than anyone outside what is going to increase their market share. More features, not demos. That’s what I’m voting for.
38
anon
// Dec 4, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I work for a very large software company (james can verify my email) and we offer a demo of the product I manage. There is almost no added cost and in fact most of our customers have first tried out our product that way (or have used it at their school).
I can’t speak for manifold, but with our architecture it isn’t a problem.
39
Erin
// Dec 4, 2006 at 3:26 pm
OK anon, I’m interested in what company you work for.
40
anon
// Dec 4, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Lets just say it begins with an “A”, but it isn’t a CAD company.
41
Matt Priour
// Dec 4, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I just posted some follow up to the post that got this train rolling.
Also, this post on James’s site seems to have caused some inner-reflection and some interesting pro-con arguements by Manifold users on thier own forum, regarding Manifold’s corporate image (or lack there of) and it’s effect.
42
Dimitri
// Dec 4, 2006 at 4:52 pm
After once more taking a moment to thank James for providing free publicity for Manifold (Thank you, James!), let me provide some info as to why Manifold does not do “free” demos of Manifold System. “Free” is in quotes because “free” demos, like “free” tech support, are far from free of cost. It’s just a question of who pays the costs.
There are free downloads / trial versions of some Manifold products, for example, Database Commander. We’ve had zillions of downloads of Commander so we have quite a bit of experience with free trials and when they serve our business interests and when they don’t.
So why not a “free” Manifold trial? Several reasons:
1. We think it is better to provide the real software than some limited demo version. This lets people try out the real, full-power software without limitations in their actual work environment. [Because of 2. below demos are often limited in some way.]
2. There are actually substantial costs to running a “free” program, such as the need to eliminate the possibility that “free” demo editions become a source for commercial software pirates. It’s interesting to note that many of the pirated versions of GIS and other software packages now available through Internet hacker sites originated in “free demo” versions. Since paying customers end up bearing the costs of all such anti-piracy programs, we prefer not to stick our paying customers with a higher cost in order to subsidize “free” demos to people who do not buy the product. Our first duty is to keep costs as low as possible for our paying customers. After all, it is the money of paying customers that pays for everything so it is their interests that come first.
3. Not providing “free” demos avoids wasting resources on people who could not possibly afford the package. In other software product families where we do have free demo versions we can see that a major percentage of downloads of free demos go to IP addresses in regions such as Nigeria and Bulgaria where it is clear (based on comparisons with actual purchase demographics) that the people who download the demo are not likely to be able to purchase the package. Yet such people do consume resources more than just simple bandwidth: they are a continuing issue for tech support and they waste interactions with sales admin. By eliminating tire kickers, we can reserve resources for the use of bona fide customers.
4. From a sales perspective, charging first is a good way of screening out people who do not have the authority to purchase the package or who must work under inefficient procurement guidelines that raise costs for everyone.
5. A subtle, but very real and important effect: people who download free trials are not as committed to learning the package as people who have spent money for it. We prefer to sell only to those people who have a bona fide commitment to spending the time to learn a new and sophisticated software product. That’s a very different profile than an uncommitted tire kicker.
Let me expand upon the latter point. Like any big-time GIS package Manifold requires at least a few days of study to learn at the beginner level. Working through the Introduction chapter and the Examples chapter takes a couple of days. People who try to learn Manifold without the Manifold DVD in hand don’t have the data sets used in the Examples and tend not to actually work through that chapter as much as people who do have the DVD. It really helps to have the DVD and the gigabytes of data it provides when trying out the product. (Experience shows that people won’t download rich sets of associated example data when they download a free trials.)
We’ve done tests and it is a very clear effect: those folks who purchase Manifold, even for a very low price, tend to be self-selected for higher motivation and greater commitment to spend the initial effort required to learn the package. In contrast, people who get Manifold for free have much less commitment and typically do not invest anywhere near as much effort into learning the package. [None of this will come as a surprise to worldly people. :-)]
We want motivated people as customers, because if someone is not willing to spend a few days of study to learn a sophisticated package they will not succeed with that package. And, if they don’t succeed with Manifold they won’t recommend the product to others.
Let’s be open about the effort involved in learning any new bigtime GIS package: even if you make the GIS more accessible and “easier to learn,” if you are working on the scale of a package like, say, Intergraph, the full ArcStuff suite or Manifold you are talking about a significant effort to learn a major new package.
Serious people who are serious buyers usually know that. Our experience is that serious GIS users understand that the cost of the package at, say, $395 for Enterprise Edition is a very small amount of the cost of evaluating a GIS package, the cost of switching to a new vendor, or even the cost of adding a new tool to the toolkit of GIS packages in use.
People who are serious about GIS don’t undertake such efforts casually. They listen to the recommendations of a trusted colleague, they pour through online editions of user manuals and if need be they visit online user forums to ask existing users about specific features and functions if they need a specific capability. If the price of the package is as low as with Manifold, the actual purchase price tends be inconsequential once such advance research has been done. You can install that Manifold license on as many machines as you like in the first 30 days to try out all that wonderful multi-user Enterprise stuff with as many users as you like, so the initial experience can be very rich despite the small outlay. I emphasize that not everyone follows this path but that it is highly typical in the case of real buyers.
Keep in mind that with Manifold’s Enterprise Edition at $395 you get full Oracle Spatial connectivity (no need for ArcSDE) and IMS and the full development environment as well. What does ArcGIS + ArcSDE + ArcIMS + ArcObjects cost you? Quite a bit more, so that the stakes are raised.
I suppose if Manifold’s Enterprise edition didn’t cost $395 but instead cost as much as ArcGIS + ArcSDE + ArcIMS + ArcObjects cost I wouldn’t be referring to the cost as inconsequential, but the very low price and very high performance of Manifold allows business strategies not open to ESRI.
If Manifold cost as much as ESRI and did as little (no 64bit operation in ESRI? No multiprocessors? No spatial SQL? Primitive restrictions on topology and spatial overlays?) we too would have to give away free trials before someone felt willing to mortgage their homes and their first born child to afford a real copy. But by making the package intrinsically affordable we reduce the financial risk that can play such a great role in ESRI purchases.
In fact, all the ESRI folks reading this blog know exactly what I mean as many have faced a time when you were grinding your teeth over the cost of an ESRI upgrade or maintenance fees wondering if it was worth the risk to do without rather than paying the price.
In forums like this one it is understandable that many ESRI people who are deeply committed to ESRI nonetheless will be curious about Manifold and will want to test drive it even if they have no serious intent to buy it.
But someone who is committed to ESRI knows they are committed, and it’s not human nature to invest a lot of time into something that you know you won’t be able to procure and use. So there you get a “tire kicker” effect very unlike people who are looking for something to actually use and deploy.
My experience is that people who are really interested in something don’t monkey around. They read the price list, they read the user manual and the moment they realize they might have a chance to save thousands of dollars by using Manifold they don’t hesitate to spend a few dollars to get in the game.
That makes sense to real business people who are trying to solve real problems. It’s a very routine thing to spend under $5000 in Manifold licenses to save over $150,000 in replaced ESRI products. Nobody in their right minds passes up a chance to explore that possibility for even a 50-50 chance of achieving such savings.
Not five minutes ago I spoke with a fellow in Australia who was telling me how happy he was that he could replace $50,000 in ArcSDE + ArcIMS (apparently, that is what ESRI’s disti in Oz charges for a single installation of both) with a $225 Manifold Universal Runtime. And, he got 64-bit, multiprocessor capability to boot. This guy is totally happy and isn’t nattering about whether he gets a free trial or not. He bought a few licenses a few months back and now he is rolling out Manifold-IMS based applications to all of his customers, saving for himself $49775 with each such customer over his previous ESRI cost.
People who can gain those efficiences don’t hesitate to take advantage of them. [And, if you want to know where fanatic Manifold customer loyalty comes from, it comes from experiences like that.]
I realize the situation is not always so clear cut. Some folks labor under awful procurement guidelines that prevent them from doing what they themselves know to be sensible. There are others who, having spent a lot of money on ESRI no longer can spend even only a few hundred. And there are some who just won’t consider anything unless they get a free taste first (even a few who will gladly pay ten times as much so long as they get that “free” taste first).
For all those folks I feel sympathy but the way out we feel is simply to keep turning the crank on what Manifold does until what Manifold does is so compelling that folks judge it worthwhile to buy. Every few weeks there are yet more advances in Manifold. For example, the recent round of free upgrades have resulted in dramatic speed increases in key geometry algorithms, and each round of new editions results in many hundreds of upgrades. If we don’t have what it takes for people to venture a few bucks now, we will in the future. It’s only a matter of time, and at a thousand upgrades a year or so, not a whole lot of time.
Regards to all,
Dimitri
43
Chris C.
// Dec 4, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Another reason for not using demos is the piracy issue, I wonder if anon’s company has any piracy issues due to demo versions becoming unlimited installs?
44
AlbertW
// Dec 4, 2006 at 6:09 pm
I don’t by the piracy or “spending time on new features” excuses. Those don’t wash with me. I guess it is all part of the myth.
That said Manifold has a huge opportunity with ESRI maintenance costs being so high. I fear that ESRI will become the domain of large organizations and smaller towns will fall off. Being a large city ourselves, we’ll never leave ESRI, but interoperability becomes a problem when other types get in the mix.
45
Daniel
// Dec 4, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Dimitri, you wall of words does nothing to keep real GIS professionals from scoffing at “your” product.
46
Manifold User
// Dec 4, 2006 at 7:02 pm
James you know you help Manifold by posting like this. More people learn about it and in turn buy it. You plan to discredit Manifold has backfired.
47
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Manifold User: I don’t care if people buy Manifold or not. I’ve always said use the best product for the job and if that means Manifold, then good for the person using Manifold and good for the company making Manifold.
Why is it people can’t deal with the fact there is no “ulterior motive” here.
48
tj
// Dec 4, 2006 at 7:37 pm
probably because all of your posting headings about Manifold are wise-ass comments, like the heading of this thread. All boldface “MANIFOLD IS A TRAIN WRECK”. Give me a break James!
Now, you identified me as one who helps you by “pointing out flaws in your logic” so you can learn from it. I always want to be congenial.
I’ve been able to learn from reading this blog too. You do a really good job of letting users know what new technologies are out there. You should be commended for the great postings on GoogleMaps, VirtualEarth, etc. This is one of the best sites for that.
But, as Popeye says “thats alls I can stands and I cant’s stands no more!”
Don’t pull this BS about “oh, I don’t know what you are talking about, I don’t trash Manifold”. BS, James, BS. You are a total Manifold flamer. Thats fine. BTW, I think Manifold needs to defend themselves, especially since they do most of the rock throwing in the glass houses.
But for you to feign some kind of surprise is just intellectually dishonest. As a Manifold user, I get a kick out of reading your flames - well done. But, you are totally transparent in your dislike for Manifold, and everyone here can see it except you.
So, please keep flaming, but at least be honest enough to admit that you are not neutral.
49
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I’m not neutral on anything, I’ve never denied that. I don’t consider my posting trashing Manifold (remember “train wreck” wasn’t my words). I considered Matt an independent voice and liked to it to reinforce my own opinions about Manifold. Don’t think for a second that I’d not link to positive blog posts about Manifold (if any existed).
Do I flame Manifold? Probably, but you have to admit I do flame almost anyone and anything here. I don’t think the whole ESRI ArcGIS Explorer team wants to talk to me, let along the ArcGIS Server team. I’ve been critical of Autodesk, Microsoft, Google and almost anyone else.
To claim I flame for monetary gain or to force hardship on another company is incorrect as “Manifold User” said. I don’t have that kind of power and I’d like to think if I did, I’d use it for good and not evil.
50
DevMonkey
// Dec 4, 2006 at 8:52 pm
I have to agree with James here. I think all his posts are flames. Check out some of the file names of images on his posts (not all, but most are just hillarious).
http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2006/11/18/esri-arcgis-server-licensing-be-ready-to-get-out-your-checkbook/
Check out that image name on that post, one of the more kind ones.
51
James Fee
// Dec 4, 2006 at 8:53 pm
LMAO, I’m glad someone noticed the image names. I don’t do it always, but I try to have fun with them.
52
Erin
// Dec 4, 2006 at 8:58 pm
My favorite was your Dangermond/Jerry Lewis post.
http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2006/09/06/the-dangermondlewis-land-swap/
One of your better flames BTW.
53
Dimitri
// Dec 4, 2006 at 9:48 pm
A little on-point flaming never hurt a vendor. If someone can’t stand that heat they shouldn’t go into the GIS business.
But even though I enjoy a particularly acid or witty turn of phrase as much as the next guy, I have to say that it is a missed opportunity if flames are stylistic only and don’t get into real content.
Now in particular is a time of great change in technology. Vista is here, following on the heels of many other transformative technologies: widespread adoption of 64-bit processors, dual-core (and soon quad core) processors, amazing advances in graphics processors, higher density and lower cost flat panels, the emergence of really small UMPC handhelds with amazing displays and power, embedded GPS, bluetooth GPS, ubiquitous and cheap broadband cellular Internet,… all sorts of transformative technologies that have a direct impact on GIS.
At the same time, for the first time in many years there is real transformation, a shuffling of the deck in what is delivered by GIS vendors and for the first time in many years of monotonically increasing prices some truly breakthrough happenings in price/performance.
Transformative new technology in the hands of a new generation of vendors determined to bring mainstream price/performance efficiencies to GIS is going to transform this entire industry. That’s going to happen and everyone in this forum knows for sure it is not likely to be ESRI who is going to lead the way to either breakthrough price/performance or in timely support for modern technology like deeply multicore desktops. They won’t get going in those areas unless they feel really threatened.
Guys who speak to the details with expertise, whether they are flaming or not, are going to participate in the reshaping of the industry forward. Guys who just flame about irrelevant stylistic matters won’t. And this “reshaping” applies whether we are talking about new players like Manifold or talking about dragging legacy guys like ESRI kicking and hollering into modern technology.
I don’t have any problems with constructive criticism because that’s how you get better. Manifold has proven again and again that expert criticism is taken to heart and acted upon, often in a time scale of weeks or months, not years.
The most recent example was criticism about two months ago that Manifold’s topology overlay geometry algorithms (polygon on polygon intersections and the like) were not nearly as fast as ESRI’s. It’s true that Manifold’s functions did more, but still the comparison was taken to heart for immediate action.
Within weeks we brought forward the next generation of geometry algorithms from next year’s planned 7.5 release into the current series of free updates, for a speedup factor of ten to forty. That was a response to technical criticism and competitive comparisons, pure and simple. That works on ESRI too, because as unconcerned as they like to play it they are deeply worried and study how to respond.
ESRI users should be happy there’s some competition from Manifold because otherwise you know there will be no sense of urgency within ESRI to embrace modern technology. Whether or not you intend to personally use Manifold, it is in your interest to be familiar with the product if for no other reason than to use it as a cattle prod to get ESRI moving.
Flame away at Manifold all you like, but if you miss the opportunity to understand what it is and to use that understanding to whip ESRI out of the dark ages, you risk missing the boat on all this wonderful new technology, from 64-bit performance to elite new scripting methodologies, that is coming together in modern times.
54
Erin
// Dec 4, 2006 at 10:26 pm
I don’t think James misses any opportunity to give ESRI a hard time.
55
Morten
// Dec 5, 2006 at 12:05 am
Just to set one thing straigt regarding 64bit performance: ALL you get is the ability to allocate more memory. There is no real performance gain. And if you GIS application needs more than 2Gb of memory to run, I think you should reconsider how you are working with the data, instead of considering the move to 64bit.
56
webster
// Dec 5, 2006 at 6:35 am
I am sorry, Morten, but you are wrong.
For one thing, in addition to being able to allocate more memory you can use more registers and wider instructions. Both these things have a direct say in the final performance.
For another thing, saying that being able to allocate more memory does not increase the possibilities of getting better performance is, well, ignorant.
Finally, arguing that allocating more than 2 GB of memory is somehow bad is not only ignorant, it is just plain dumb. Ever heard of in-memory databases?
57
sal
// Dec 5, 2006 at 6:57 am
Morten,
sorry to pile on here, but webster is correct. this would be funny, if it weren’t such a tragic reflection on your “I’ll defend ESRI at any cost” mentality. Your post is exactly the thing that Dimitri’s rants talk about:
“ESRI doesn’t use 64-bit, so, it must not be important”.
That is why Manifold is so acidic in their writings, to inform their users with good information when they come across people like you.
The help files are not really for everyone, but rather they are for the Manifold users. People who pay for Manifold enter a trust relationship with the company. The company, in turn, does not hold anything back, but rather provides information necessary to combat statements like the one you made. So, if you don’t want to buy the product because you don’t like Manifold’s tone, fine. Don’t buy it. The help files are not there for that reason. They are their for the existing users. The people who do buy Manifold want that information if for no other reason than to counter claims like the one just made.
The only reason I can think of that you came up with such a statement was because ESRI does not support those things, and you need a justification as to why.
Read Manifold’s essay on processor speed:
http://www.manifold.net/doc/7x/gis_and_networking.htm
and, appreciate their candid nature in trying to help you from getting fleeced. After reading the essay, maybe now you can recognize what additional memory can do to processing speed, especially if you can pull an enormous dataset into memory to work on it, rather than continuing to swap out to the disk? But of course, to take advantage of that you will need a modern architecture.
58
Lefty
// Dec 5, 2006 at 7:16 am
Why is it I’m laughing every time someone links to a Manifold marketing document as proof that the Manifold way of doing something is correct.
At least post a link to a neutral party proving those “facts”. I love the argument, “It must be true because Manifold told me”.
That said I do want 64bit support soon on the server side of ESRI, and I could list some very valid reasons here why it is important, but linking to a marketing document like that is not the way to prove your point.
59
sal
// Dec 5, 2006 at 7:53 am
yes, you are correct Lefty. None of the things in the Manifold link that was provided is true. Its all made up. Thanks for clarifying that. And of course, my statements about Manifold Help files are really their to arm their users was bogus - it really is just marketing.
So Morten, my apologies to you. You are correct, 64-bit really doesn’t add any performance gain. I’m glad ESRI did not waste resources on porting their software to true 64-bit.
60
Lefty
// Dec 5, 2006 at 8:03 am
Typical Sal, it doesn’t matter if the article has valid points or not. It isn’t credible.
61
James R
// Dec 5, 2006 at 8:05 am
Cor….I thought posters on the Manifold forum held forthright views but they’ve nothing on you guys here!!
62
Gretch
// Dec 5, 2006 at 8:06 am
Help files contain the words “The Manifold Way”?
Uh OK Sal, seems more marketing than a Knowlege Base article.
63
Rich
// Dec 5, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Take a look at:
http://www.fmtn.org/GeneralMap/
This is a beta site running on Manifold 7x. It’s not approved for public consumption yet, but I could use a few more beta tsters, so give it a go. I wouldn’t say it’s the best Manifold based IMS ever created (or even close), but it does show that Manifold IMS does work, and quite well (I’ve been using the Manifold IMS intenally for City employees a couple of years now).
There are two issues that I need to point out ahead of time.
1) Make sure you use the Select/Find buttons on the Web Page, and not the enter button on your keyboard.
2) The “Summary of Selected Addresses” takes quite a bit of time (30+ seconds), so please be patient and wait for the query to return the results. I’m working on finding a way to optimize the query.
This site uses the IMS Template from GIS advisor.com. If your serious about learning Manifold, the GIS Advisor videos will help a lot! I really like the ability that Manifold provides to do spatial SQL queries via a web site.
64
webster
// Dec 5, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Hey, I tried to be technical.
To Gretch and Infran: What is your opinion on 64-bit stuff? Would you say that having native 64-bit capability is key for being fast nowadays, or would you agree with Morten? Or is it that you have no opinion on 64-bit stuff and can only argue non-technical points such as the credibility of materials coming from a particular company?
65
webster
// Dec 5, 2006 at 10:41 pm
And a special thing for Lefty:
“it doesn’t matter if the article has valid points or not”
Quite the opposite. For a technical discussion, whether or not an article has valid points is all that matters about it. If you prefer talking about whether or not an article comes from a credible source and judge whether or not the points it makes are valid on that, you are talking politics, not technology.
66
tj
// Dec 6, 2006 at 6:43 am
Lefty said:
I’m sorry Lefty, but that is a somewhat scarey comment. It really is group-think mentality. Just look at the logic of what you say:
sure it does. if an article has valid points, then it has valid points. things that are true are true, regardless of your opinion about the writer.
On the other hand, things that are false are false. So, if Manifold make erroneous statements in their documentation, then those statements are not valid.
Now, you may not like someone, but it is illogical to say that if the points they make in a written document are true, it isn’t valid. How can a true statement not be valid?
why not? Again, you are ignoring content. If a statement is true, then it is true. If it is false, then it is false.
Judging by your tone, you have some pent up hatred for Manifold - or, some wildly blind love for ESRI so you choose to ignore anything Manifold would say. That is just poor reason and logic skills.
It is ok to hate Manifold or love ESRI. Just be honest about how you evaluate things. Thats sort of what James does here. He is obviously an ESRI user, and is continuing to push ESRI solutions to his customers. However, he makes no bones about problems that ESRI has. Thats honest.
You on the other hand have just gone on record as saying if a statement is true, its not valid. And, your basis for making that decision is due to a preconcieved prejudice about Manifold.
67
tj
// Dec 6, 2006 at 7:05 am
Gretch said:
we have to ignore all the technical points? Both you and Lefty are using high school debate tactics. Rather than taking on the 64-bit question head on, you look to do a re-direct. Again, like Lefty, these are poor reason skills.
ESRI has a book titled “Getting to Know GIS: The ArcGIS Method”
Because they say:
should I flip the bozo bit on ESRI and say its nothing more than marketing? Absolutely not! It is a great book that teaching principles about GIS, in the context of using the ArcGIS software package. It would be absurd for me to apply your’s and Lefty’s logic to the ESRI book.
Similarly, Manifold does have a particular way in which they go about using GIS: they call it the Manifold way. Fine. It helps to understand the justification for their architectural decisions such as storing geometric objects in databases, making maximum use of RAM, etc..
But again, rather than dealing with the technical points of Sal’s argument, you make a ham-handed redirect. Both you and Lefty can do better than that.
And, I’m not even going to dignify Infran’s comments, only to say I think he found himself out of his league in these discussions, and just went sort of postal.
OK, so enough of my off-topic rambling here. I just wrote it to say we would do better keeping focused on the technical issues raised, and not get so exercised about tangent issues: its not like we are debating religion - or is it
So, how about getting back to the technical merits of the discussion.
68
Dimitri
// Dec 6, 2006 at 3:18 pm
From a purely technical perspective, there are many advantages of 64-bit code if your hardware has the capacity to allow those advantages to be realized. Obviously, you need a 64-bit processor but you also should have enough memory to make stepping up to 64-bit operation worthwhile. This is not normally an issue given the low cost of RAM, but it can be an issue with older motherboards that can host no more than 2GB of RAM.
The Manifold user manual in the 32-bit and 64-bit Editions topic at
http://www.manifold.net/doc/7x/32_bit_and_64_bit_manifold_editions.htm
mentions a few of the advantages:
“The main advantages of 64-bit Manifold is that 64-bit processors will always work in 64-bit mode. This is often faster than using a 64-bit processor in 32-bit mode and it allows the processor to use 64-bit wide memory fetches for higher bandwidth to memory as well as a larger, 64-bit memory addressing space. This means that the processor can use far more memory and use that memory more efficiently.
The ability to use more memory and to more efficiently use memory in 64-bit systems ripples throughout the internal architecture of Manifold System and also provides opportunities for Manifold to leverage enhanced capabilities in 64-bit Windows. For example, many data structures are used throughout the system for stacks, buffers and other needs, and these data structures can be made both larger and implemented more efficiently in 64 bits. Windows itself in 64-bit editions has immensely greater capabilities for the capacity of important architectural components such as virtual memory, paging file size, hyperspace, paged and non-paged pools, system cache and system Page Table Entries (PTEs).
The best way to take advantage of such 64-bit capabilities is to install as much RAM as possible in your computer. RAM is cheaper than ever, so load your machine up with as much RAM as you can install, and consider motherboards with larger RAM capacities when procuring new systems. RAM has become so inexpensive that thinking in terms of 8 or 12 gigabytes of RAM for a 64-bit system is not unusual. It is also important to increase the size of the Windows pagefile to give Manifold as well as other applications more virtual memory.”
RAM is so important that the better processor-to-memory bandwidth offered by 64-bit code is a big gain. Why is that?
From the “Using RAM and Other Machine Resources” topic at…
http://www.manifold.net/doc/7x/using_ram_and_other_machine_resources.htm
…we can see that the bandwidth between processor and RAM is easily a thousand times greater (faster) than to slower elements such as disk. Disk accesses occur in milliseconds while RAM accesses occur in microseconds, so working in RAM is indeed a thousand times faster than getting disk involved.
And there are many more circumstances where disk perversely gets involved when you’d think it might all be happening in RAM.
For example, the process-space limitations in 32-bit Windows can require applications to get disks involved in tasks using what, for modern times, are smallish amounts of RAM, 2 or 3 gigabytes. But there are very many GIS tasks that involve more than that amount of space.
Keep in mind that if you are editing even only a 1GB data set you’ll want an image available for “Undo” rollback, possibly some space for intermediate results and so on. It can easily be the case that to deal with a 1GB image you’d ideally want to consume two, three or even four times as much memory in actual process space.
If 32-bit process space limitations force you to start paging, right at that moment you’ll encounter a thousandfold slowdown compared to what might have been. It’s a very big effect.
RAM is too cheap not to use plenty of it and too much of a benefit not to use effectively, so I don’t want to hear any guff from guys getting ready to burn up tens of thousands of dollars per seat on a software package but complaining that they’re not willing to spend several hundred or even a thousand on RAM to achieve significantly faster performance. There is no reason not to have at least 4GB and even better 8 GB or more to allow 64-bit code to rocket along just as fast as that processor can handle.
69
Ed
// Dec 7, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Dimitri,
Would your company ever consider giving James a free copy of your software? If he likes it I’m sure he would be impartial and let people know what is so great about it. Since Manifold doesn’t spend too much money on marketing a few key placed copies of Manifold to some of the more prominent bloggers could benefit your compay quite a bit.
70
Dimitri
// Dec 7, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Sure, we’d be happy to. We provide review copies to journalists writing for either print media or ezines as well as to bloggers who have established readerships (James certainly qualifies).
My only concern with such things is that it is extremely difficult for anyone whose job or avocation does not involve using a particular GIS to really invest significant time into a review. So although reviews by journalists have thus far been universally positive, they have all been somewhat superficial due to the unavoidable time limits that constrain the writer to just scratching the surface. I’m not complaining, just talking about a practical effect that is not easy to overcome.
This is a problem that somewhat bedevils the industry and user community at large. Many of us would be interested in a comprehensive, in depth comparison of various GIS packages. But any of the bigtime GIS packages is a large thing with thousands of features. It is very difficult to find anyone who is sufficiently expert in all of the different GIS packages who also has the time to collate and compare the very many features of different packages in a useful way, let alone to keep any such comparison current.
James, if you are interested in a reviewer’s copy please drop me a line at dar@manifold.net with a shipping address and we’ll send a unit out to you right away.
71
tj
// Dec 8, 2006 at 4:05 pm
But its on your site. Don’t be such a hack James. It is pathetic that you would say “remember train wreck wasn’t my words”. Thats like the person making fun of some ethnic group by quoting someone else and then saying “hey, I didn’t come up with the term”.
No James, you didn’t originate the words, but you have it up in BOLD for the world to see. And, what is worse, there is a retraction of the statement, but you wouldn’t dare put it up here. That would be too intellectually honest!
Dimitri would be a sap to give a classless hack like you a free copy of the software. Like Matt, you won’t bother reading the documentation, and then you’ll just trash it on your blog, because deep down, you really don’t want to give Manifold a fair shake.
While a few people have said they appreciated my comments, I have to say that this blog toilet is no longer worth my time.
72
KoS
// Dec 8, 2006 at 5:51 pm
*sigh*
*flushes toilet*
*gets plunger out*
*rolls up sleeves*
*looks*
*shrugs shoulders*
*turns around*
*walks away*
KoS
73
wed
// Dec 9, 2006 at 6:54 am
Let’s not forget this gem from James: http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2006/07/31/james-doesnt-like/ and not get too wrapped up on this. I think it’s safe to say that he takes the Dirty Harry approach to GIS software.
74
tj
// Dec 9, 2006 at 1:06 pm
which says nothing. he lists everything he can think of, and in doing so, he basically makes a statement on nothing. It basically overlaps his list of everything he loves/uses.
However, in the case of manifold, he has big bold letters saying TRAIN WRECK , when he now knows it isn’t true given the recanting of the statement on the original blog.
75
wed
// Dec 9, 2006 at 5:44 pm
I see. I’m not sure how I could have missed that the first time around.
As a greybeard programmer I used to work with once said in response to one of those interminable Windows vs. Linux/Java vs. .NET/commercial vs. open source type arguments: it’s technology, not religion. As far as I’m concerned, we can now add the Manifold vs. Everything argument to the list of irrational, pointless technology rants.
Contrary to your statement above, I’ve not run across a single regular contributor to this blog who is a “classless hack.” In fact, they’re all pretty smart and experienced. I’m sure no one here is really going to make a decision about Manifold based upon the “Train Wreck” headline alone. I know it won’t factor into my decision process.
So thanks for your earlier comments that shed some light on Manifold. I’ve had my eye on it for a while but have never had an opportunity to try it . I feel like I have a little more information now. As for the “Train Wreck,” you don’t agree. We get it.
With that, I’m going to shut off all of my buggy, frustrating technology (basically everything from the OS on up) and head out to get my wafer.
76
Dimitri
// Dec 9, 2006 at 9:00 pm
For tj - I’m not one to pile on (well, not usually…) but I have to say with the greatest respect that in this thread your tone has changed dramatically from the first postings to the latter ones. Thefirst postings made progress while the latter ones worked against progress.
Not being one to let it go at that (Russian authors will rarely say in 100 words what they can say in 1000), let me also point out that your latter posts are being a bit unfair to James and the nature of his blog. I’m new to this blog but it seems that part of its appeal to its readership is the irreverent tone, granted ESRI-centric but nonetheless irreverent. Choose to participate and you embrace that tone at a time and place and style of James’s choosing. Just like his writings, whether critical or happy, elevate the visibility of something in search engines, just so your writings here elevate the blog’s visibility.
And that’s not bad because James is being an honest major domo of this voluntary circus. He seems to be letting threads roam on well past where a less patient person might have terminated them. And that honest brokering of ideas should earn him the right to be insulated from personal attacks.
My own rule of thumb is that acid comments should reserved for the discussion of technology and technical ideas and not aimed at people, so long as the people behind them are being fair brokers.
I crossed that line in a recent response to Matt Priour’s original posting in his blog that resonated to start this thread. Comments I had sought to post were not appearing in Matt’s thread so I thought “OK, this guy is censoring people who disagree with him.” It turns out my posts were indeed blocked (a spam filter Matt has on his blog), but Matt had noticed they were and posted the last one for me. Even so I regret an acid comment or two mentioning Matt by name in the contest of censorship.
But none of that apparently is going on here. James is letting people co