Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
In article <12802@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>, william@kaula.keck.hawaii.edu (William Lupton) writes: |> Can someone please explain the past, present and future relationship between |> IDL (and Research Systems Inc) and PVWAVE (and Precision Visuals)? I had sort |> of assumed that RSI had sold it to PVI but now I read that RSI are releasing a |> new Motif / Open Look product called IDLwidgets. Is this the same as the PVWAVE |> point and click product? Are both products continuing to be developed |> separately? Or are they in fact continuing to be developed together? |> |> William Lupton (wlupton@keck.hawaii.edu) -- According to the latest IDL NEWSLETTER - SPRING 1991, IDL terminated their licensing agreement with PV-Wave as of Sept. 1990 and the products are now free to diverge. It would have been nice if IDL has announced this a little sooner as one of my colleagues just purchased PV-Wave under the assumption that PV-Wave was going to remain compatable with IDL (which is what I use). I have played BRIEFLY with the command language version of PV-wave and the Point & Click version. I didn't like the Point & Click version at all. I had two other non-IDL users (1 with extensive SUNVIEW/X11 coding experience and one new to a SUN workstation and windowed environemt) also try the Point & Click version. Neither of them liked it as it simply takes too many mouse clicks to get anything done. It reminds me of why I dislike Macs, though, those users who prefer 10 mouse clicks to typing a single command might like it. As for the command language version of PV-Wave, it seemed identical to IDL and I don't know if it is worth the extra money. My colleague bought it because PV-Wave had a GSA purchase number, while IDL did not. If you have dealt with government purchasing then you would understand his decision. As for IDL's new widgets, I ASSUME that these are equivalent to the Wave-Widgets, though I have not had any time to play with these yet. As for the future, who knows how the products will diverge. I plan to stay with IDL because I deal with several other groups that use IDL and only one person who uses PV-Wave. In IDL's newletter, they also indicate that they are working on a DOS version of IDL and a network floating license. IDL Ver 2.1 also has a Statistics Package and some mapping and gridding routines also with a simple coastline database. They also ask in the newsletter if people would be interested in being able to use the NCAR coastline database at extra cost. I would personally find this database very usefull and the more people that indicate this to IDL, the more likely that IDL will support it. Therefore, everyone should immediately send IDL mail (idl@boulder.colorado.edu) telling them that they want the NCAR database. Note that these opinions are based on only a brief evaluation of PV-Wave. All standard disclaimers apply. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- . . .__. The opinions expressed herein are soley |\./| !__! Michael Plonski those of the author and do not represent | | | "plonski@aero.org" those of The Aerospace Corporation. ____________________________________________________________ ___________________
In article <1991May3.032845.24972@aero.org> plonski@Aero.org (Mike Plonski) writes: . . . > According to the latest IDL NEWSLETTER - SPRING 1991, IDL terminated > their licensing agreement with PV-Wave as of Sept. 1990 and the > products are now free to diverge. Oh no. We are stuck on the PV-Wave track (with 4 expensive licenses) so it would be difficult to switch back to IDL. I am frankly not happy with PVI's handling of their version of IDL. It costs a lot more than IDL and any significant additions they have added, such as Widgets or Point-and-Click, cost yet extra! Besides which PVI seems hung up on Sunview interfaces. I'd sure like to see some work done with Openwindows. . . . > In IDL's newletter, they also > indicate that they are working on a DOS version of IDL and a network > floating license. > IDL Ver 2.1 also has a Statistics Package and some > mapping and gridding routines also with a simple coastline database. The only one of these that PV-Wave has is the floating license, which really benefits PVI, not the customer. PVI: are you listening? How about statistics, DOS, and so on? How about providing *real* value for all the extra $$$'s your customers are paying? How about at *least* telling your customers where you are headed, especially with the split that just took place. I would really rather hear about these things from you, rather than from the Usenet (thank God for the net though). -- Ralph Finch 916-445-0088 rfinch@water.ca.gov ...ucbvax!ucdavis!caldwr!rfinch Any opinions expressed are my own; they do not represent the DWR
In article <288@venice.water.ca.gov> rfinch@caldwr.water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch) writes: > > I am frankly not happy with PVI's handling of their version of IDL. > It costs a lot more than IDL and any significant additions they have > added, such as Widgets or Point-and-Click, cost yet extra! Besides > which PVI seems hung up on Sunview interfaces. I'd sure like to see > some work done with Openwindows. I agree with the consensus that Point-and-Click is neither very exciting nor convenient for those real programmers who prefer the CLI (command line interface) but it offers some "user-friendliness" to those who are easily intimidated by having to learn and memorize commands. I too think that PVI is getting "a little" greedy in the prices they are asking for Point-and-Click. Methinks they should have offered it at much lower prices to existing users of Wave who are on the software maintenance contracts ;-> . The version of PV Wave I have (3.01) supports the OpenWindows interface. >> In IDL's newletter, they also >> indicate that they are working on a DOS version of IDL and a network >> floating license. Graphics Visualization on a 486 platform??!! Come on, let's get real. But then again it depends upon you application, I guess. >> IDL Ver 2.1 also has a Statistics Package and some >> mapping and gridding routines also with a simple coastline database. I can go for that. > PVI: are you listening? How about statistics, DOS, and so on? How > about providing *real* value for all the extra $$$'s your customers > are paying? How about at *least* telling your customers where you are > headed, especially with the split that just took place. I would > really rather hear about these things from you, rather than from the > Usenet (thank God for the net though). Yes, Peter [Hallet]. Are you there!? Ramesh Viswanathan "The Trouble Rebel" Environmental Research Center Universiy of Nevada-Las Vegas
In article <1991May3.165723.28887@nevada.edu> ramesh@nevada.edu (RAMESH VISWANATHAN) writes: . . . > Graphics Visualization on a 486 platform??!! Come on, let's get real. > But then again it depends upon you application, I guess. I thought it was a joke too (I'm interested in the DOS port only because some of our district people don't have all the neat Sun equipment we do, and would need to run our interface work on DOS. *We* would never stoop to using DOS :-). But, the fellow I talked to at RSI seemed quite pleased with the DOS port, apparently it runs well even on a 386 with 4MB. Basically the split means yet another decision that newcomers to visualization will have to make. For those of us already well into either product, hopefully both companies will work hard to keep their now separate products up to speed. Hey, maybe it would be easier to chuck out everything and pay $75 bucks for apE ;-) I suppose after a while the two products will diverge enough so that this group will become meaningless. Oh well. (What's that bucky you say the group was meaningless when it started?!) -- Ralph Finch 916-445-0088 rfinch@water.ca.gov ...ucbvax!ucdavis!caldwr!rfinch Any opinions expressed are my own; they do not represent the DWR
In article <1991May3.165723.28887@nevada.edu>, ramesh@nevada.edu (RAMESH VISWANATHAN) writes: > In article <288@venice.water.ca.gov> rfinch@caldwr.water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch) writes: >> >> I am frankly not happy with PVI's handling of their version of IDL. >> It costs a lot more than IDL and any significant additions they have >> added, such as Widgets or Point-and-Click, cost yet extra! Besides >> which PVI seems hung up on Sunview interfaces. I'd sure like to see >> some work done with Openwindows. > > > I agree with the consensus that Point-and-Click is neither very exciting > nor convenient for those real programmers who prefer the CLI (command > line interface) but it offers some "user-friendliness" to those who are > easily intimidated by having to learn and memorize commands. We don't have it and the point-&-click method may not be to everyones liking but I find it should save programmer's (my) time in the long run by reducing the number of requests from end-users to write custom/one-off display routines. The end-users can satisfy most of their own (boring) requests when there is a suitable "user-friendly" interface. I can then spend more time on more difficult and interesting problems. > I too think that PVI is getting "a little" greedy in the prices they > are asking for Point-and-Click. Methinks they should have offered it > at much lower prices to existing users of Wave who are on the software > maintenance contracts ;-> . Agree 100%. > > The version of PV Wave I have (3.01) supports the OpenWindows interface. > >>> In IDL's newletter, they also >>> indicate that they are working on a DOS version of IDL and a network >>> floating license. > > Graphics Visualization on a 486 platform??!! Come on, let's get real. > But then again it depends upon you application, I guess. Don't rubbish PC's. They are/will be the necessary driving force to keep other computer companies honest and on the ball. > >>> IDL Ver 2.1 also has a Statistics Package and some >>> mapping and gridding routines also with a simple coastline database. > > I can go for that. Me too. In fact I have used a similar package called Z which already has some S+ features. Also, a new S+ will have more image visualization features. It may make PV~Wave redundant on our site. So, unless PVI get their act together and either re-establish links with IDL or progress along similar directions, we can't see any advantage in staying with PV~Wave or even IDL. I think PV~Wave and IDL should stay together to compete with other products. > >> PVI: are you listening? How about statistics, DOS, and so on? How >> about providing *real* value for all the extra $$$'s your customers >> are paying? How about at *least* telling your customers where you are >> headed, especially with the split that just took place. I would >> really rather hear about these things from you, rather than from the >> Usenet (thank God for the net though). > > Yes, Peter [Hallet]. Are you there!? Yeah! I wish PVI took a few pages out of TGV's (Multinet) book on handling client queries. -- Jack N. Churchill | jack@syd.deg.csiro.au CSIRO Division of Exploration Geoscience | churchill@decus.com.au Remote Sensing Group | Phone: +61 2 887 8884 PO Box 136 North Ryde NSW 2113 | Fax: +61 2 887 8909 Australia | Telex: AA25817
By pure coincidence a workmate just arrived with the IDl Users Guide Addendum. It certainly has lots of stats including cluster analysis and analysis of variance. He had a demo with another group and found the IDL widgets very handy. He is 'demanding' we buy IDL despite the fact we already have PV~Wave on a VAXstation 3200. We had a short meeting with other interested parties and came to a tentative conclusion we should buy IDL for our DECsystem 500/200 instead of buying another relatively expensive copy of PV~Wave. At least we will have our cake and eat it too until we can see more clearly what develops. Can RSI and PVI please state their future directions and objectives for their respective products? -- Jack N. Churchill | jack@syd.deg.csiro.au CSIRO Division of Exploration Geoscience | churchill@decus.com.au Remote Sensing Group | Phone: +61 2 887 8884 PO Box 136 North Ryde NSW 2113 | Fax: +61 2 887 8909 Australia | Telex: AA25817
We have 2 licenses in our dept. We were thinking of writing a data acquisition system (for Neurophysiology) in WAVE, but at these prices it's out of the question. A neurophys rig costs >$10K, sans computer, even at that price $2k more for the language to run the software is extreme. We are looking into other options and will probably abandon WAVE altogether. Too bad. It was a nice product, but boy are they greedy. TZ