What's going on at QNX?

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
41

“Alex Cellarius” <acellarius@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104_1024000055@pentiumii…

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:10:06 -0700, “Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)”
QTPS@EarthLink.net> > wrote:

You’re right Jim, they don’t. If you can sell 5000 run times a month
they
DON’T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I’m not sure what you mean here?
I know I will go around the block many times for 5000 runtimes/month…

Sorry. That should have been “CAN’T” sell 5000 …

Gee. Just two little characters and everyone gets all confused. ;~}

42

In article <aea64q$59c$1@inn.qnx.com>, Frank Liu wrote:

Yuri D’Elia <> wavexx@hydra.ubiest.com> > wrote:
realtime OS (I would accept istead a ‘NC’ licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

This is a good idea. Instead of giving away free stripped down version
for NC, you can charge a small fee and give a full version for NC.
Since it is NC, it won’t affect your SE/PE sales. Since it is full
version, it will be a better advertise for your SE/PE. The software
produced will be more compatible (cdm won’t have to re-create his
3rd party CD …)

Do we have a chance that someone at QSSL consider (or even ‘read’) this
proposal?

–
wave++ (Yuri D’Elia)
Software Developer @ ubiest.com

43

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:aeapr3$jt0$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Jim Lambert” <> jlambert@futurex.com> > wrote in message
news:aeahba$e37$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000
but
didn’t want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn’t have been an issue. I don’t
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems
using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

You’re right Jim, they don’t. If you can sell 5000 run times a month they
DON’T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I’m back at a previous employer. We are working on a great QNX4 product.
We bought several hundred RT licenses several years ago and got a good
price
for them. To date we’ve sold only a small percentage of that.

Thank God QNX4 is a mature and stable product. Because the company we
bought those licenses from does exist any more.

** on soapbox **

This is just my personal opinion, not the company line:

Bill, clearly you intended to get a rise out of people and I’d
say you’ve succeeded in my case. I’ve been here since 1988
and have been using QNX since 1985. Many ‘old timers’ who
were part of the company you dealt with in the past are still
here, not the least of whom are Dan Dodge and Gord Bell
who continue to lead our organization. We’ve also brought
in some of the best and brightest to help us as we grow and
these terrific people have complemented, not replaced, those
who have been here a long time. The company is the people
who work here and your comment is as wrong as it is offensive.

QNX has more of a drive to satisfy our customers now than
we have had in the past decade of our existence. I’ve been
here a while and can tell you, that is the absolute truth. We
have the best of intentions with respect to delivering quality
and value for money, and developing good relationships
with all our customers. And if we aren’t doing it right, we
want to know. But constructive comments don’t include
cynical remarks about QNX “not being the same company”
or not caring.

We’re also a business and have to both compete and prosper
in order to continue offering the quality goods and services
that we have over the years. That means that for the products
and services we provide we need to charge appropriately.

It’s my opinion that our former pricing structure with respect
to development seats had led us to so some funny things.
Development seats should be priced such that they pay for our
costs associated with making the sale, maintaining a proper
relationship with our customer, and supporting that customer.
If we charge too little for development seats, it leads to
unfortunate side-effects. In my opinion, that’s what had
happened with our previous pricing models and I believe is
one of the root causes of your perception that we don’t care
about customers who don’t have huge runtime volumes. If we
have pushed away customers before I trust that is not
true now and ask you please to give us another chance.

With respect to QNX 4, I’m very proud of QNX 4, as is just
about everyone who worked to create it. It is a great product.
So is QNX Neutrino. QNX Neutrino is a worthy successor and
is far from an infant technology.

QNX has been selling Neutrino technology for roughly the
past five years and it was in development well before that.
We’ve tested QNX Neutrino more exhaustively than we ever
did QNX 4. And the improvements show. To the extent that
QNX Neutrino doesn’t have all the features that QNX 4 used
to, it’s because most customers who have been interested in
the technology aren’t demanding it… yet. That doesn’t
mean that the decision of tomorrow won’t be to implement
those features. Input from customers, including (and
perhaps even in particular) yourself are always welcome
and valued.

OK, I’ll step off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening. :slight_smile:

Bill, if you want to discuss this at length via email or telephone,
just email me.

** off soapbox **

44

David Rempel <drempel@qnx.com> wrote:

Frank Liu <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote:
SNIP

(cdm won’t have to re-create his 3rd party CD …)

Hey! Let’s give credit where credit is due here > :wink:> , the 3rd party CD was a team
effort by many here at QSSL, and not to diminish the amount of work that Chris put
into this thing, but I put a good 2+ weeks into it myself (full time, including weekends).
Other people here put alot of effort into it here as well. I wouldn’t call it
cdm’s CD, I’d call it the communities CD that was started by QSS R&D engineers.

100% behind you there Dave. I have actually had to step in many times and
corrected people on this before (including editing a posting on qnxZone
about the cd). Lots of hours where put in by lots of people to make that
disc come from nothing to something in 2 weeks. :wink: And it will only get
better!

chris

–
Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

45

Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote:

You guys must think that by adding more and more nonsense to this thread you
make it more valuable and easy to follow…

I agree. I’m still waiting for a better explanation from Alec as to how the
use of the Momentics name removes confusion from the QNX product line.

I know I didn’t like the name at first, it just seems silly. It’s kinda grown
on my now, and I don’t mind it anymore. Now I only take issue with the fact
that “Momentics” (aside from being a made up word) has no real value in terms
of it’s ability to describe the product offering from QSSL.

If we look at the pre-6.2/Momentics product offering there was:

  • QNX RTP (free download)
  • QNX 6 Commercial Development Seat [more or less indistinguisable from RTP]
  • QNX Windows SDK
  • QNX Solaris SDK

Or something like that, and admittedly, it was never clear what the products
actually were.

But now, we have:

  • QNX Momentics NC (free download, x86/arm only, no IDE, no embedding tools)
  • QNX Momentics SE (commercial development seat, no IDE, all platforms)
  • QNX Momentics PE (commercial development seat, IDE, all platforms, procnto-instr)
  • QNX Neutrino + QNX Photon

Interesting thing is that the last two NTO + Photon are included in the previous
three, so they don’t immediately appear to be products at all, until you think of
them for volume licensing for an OEM product.

This is where the first problem occurs.
Q) Can you install QNX Neutrino + QNX Photon without installing Momentics?
A) Yes.
Download QNX Momentics NC, and perform the initial install, but not the
subsequent install of the Momentics package after rebooting.

The problem here is that you see NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE between NC, SE, and PE
until you run the installer, and even then, you don’t actually see three choices,
you see one with the same name (for all intents and purposes). So the user only
really has a notion of having installed “Momentics”, and not “Momentics NC”, or
“Momentics SE”, or “Momentics PE”. So, if you ask them what they installed they
will say… “QNX Momentics”. …and there is your problem. The NC/SE/PE just
plain disappear from most people’s minds and they perceive only ONE PRODUCT.
Unfortunatly, that perception results in THREE PRODUCTS that all have the same
name, and THAT is what is so damned confusing about the whole Momentics name
thing.

Cheers,
Camz.

46

Phab is included and it says it’s the same rev as the prior releases. I
would expect most of the effort was put into the eclipse tools. Is there a
replacement for Phab in the IDE, or is it going to be maintained and
upgraded once dust settles and RTP matures?
(I mean no insult by saying once RTP matures, I expect it to take time for
them to get feed back on what customers really want out of a new product. I
wouldn’t expect it to be all it was intended to be for a couple years.)

Pete Eddy


“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:ae85t2$khc$1@nntp.qnx.com…

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@earthlink.net> > wrote:
I just downloaded, but have not yet installed, the 6.2 NC package.

From reading the documentation on the CD image, only the SE & PE
versions
include PhAB, not the NC version.

So are we to understand that there are software products that were free
with
6.1a that we now have to buy?


No, PhAB is included in 6.2 NC. It is the IDE (Eclipse based) that is
not.

chris

–
Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

47

Pete Eddy <peter.w.eddy@lmco.com> wrote:

Phab is included and it says it’s the same rev as the prior releases. I
would expect most of the effort was put into the eclipse tools. Is there a
replacement for Phab in the IDE, or is it going to be maintained and
upgraded once dust settles and RTP matures?

I don’t think Phab will be replaced in the IDE – it will be run
in parallel. (That, at least, seems to be the current implementation,
there is a Phab for Windows that can be run for Windows development
of Photon applications already. Not sure what exists on the Solaris
side as I don’t have the pleasure of a Solaris box on my desk.)

-David

QNX Training Services
http://www.qnx.com/support/training/
Please followup in this newsgroup if you have further questions.

48

<camz@passageway.com> wrote in message news:aebt85$e96$1@inn.qnx.com…

Igor Kovalenko <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote:
You guys must think that by adding more and more nonsense to this thread
you
make it more valuable and easy to follow…

I agree. I’m still waiting for a better explanation from Alec as to how
the
use of the Momentics name removes confusion from the QNX product line.

I’m sorry about the delay Camz. It’s been an interesting week for me, the
upshot of which is that I am no longer a QSSL employee. I will try to
answer your question, however.

What QSSL has now is basically three brands – Momentics (developer suites),
Neutrino (the OS), and QNX (the company). From a business perspective it
was done because:

  1. Brand building and maintenance is expensive and QSSL had too many brands.
    So, Photon, Phindows and QNET, for example, are now simply features of the
    OS where before we referred to them as separate products, and separate
    brands.
  2. RTP was a confusing brand – the word platform, in particular being used
    in a fashion that is outside the normal usage
  3. We wanted to be able to talk about all the great tools we built as well
    as the great OS, so it was desirable to separate the two from a messaging
    perspective. We wanted to be able to say that the tools were powerful, easy
    to use, comprehensive, and standards based. The core attributes of the OS
    are that it’s reliable, scalable, and standarsd based.
  4. We wanted the embedded world to KNOW that we had a tools offering,
    because it’s been a criticism for so long. Messaging that is made much
    simpler and clearer by naming it differently from the OS product.
  5. By bundling together things like BSP’s, processor support, DDK’s, and
    tools for Windows, Solaris and RTP into the same package, we’re delivering a
    much larger value to the customer than before and also, we think, a much
    larger value than some of our competitors do.

Hope that helps. I won’t be hanging out on this message board much longer
gang, but it’s been a slice.

Alec.

49

What the heck is going on? Alec… you can’t go!

Kevin
“Alec Saunders” <alecs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:aeirir$ghf$1@inn.qnx.com…

camz@passageway.com> > wrote in message news:aebt85$e96$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Igor Kovalenko <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote:
You guys must think that by adding more and more nonsense to this
thread
you
make it more valuable and easy to follow…

I agree. I’m still waiting for a better explanation from Alec as to how
the
use of the Momentics name removes confusion from the QNX product line.

I’m sorry about the delay Camz. It’s been an interesting week for me, the
upshot of which is that I am no longer a QSSL employee. I will try to
answer your question, however.

What QSSL has now is basically three brands – Momentics (developer
suites),
Neutrino (the OS), and QNX (the company). From a business perspective it
was done because:

  1. Brand building and maintenance is expensive and QSSL had too many
    brands.
    So, Photon, Phindows and QNET, for example, are now simply features of the
    OS where before we referred to them as separate products, and separate
    brands.
  2. RTP was a confusing brand – the word platform, in particular being
    used
    in a fashion that is outside the normal usage
  3. We wanted to be able to talk about all the great tools we built as well
    as the great OS, so it was desirable to separate the two from a messaging
    perspective. We wanted to be able to say that the tools were powerful,
    easy
    to use, comprehensive, and standards based. The core attributes of the OS
    are that it’s reliable, scalable, and standarsd based.
  4. We wanted the embedded world to KNOW that we had a tools offering,
    because it’s been a criticism for so long. Messaging that is made much
    simpler and clearer by naming it differently from the OS product.
  5. By bundling together things like BSP’s, processor support, DDK’s, and
    tools for Windows, Solaris and RTP into the same package, we’re delivering
    a
    much larger value to the customer than before and also, we think, a much
    larger value than some of our competitors do.

Hope that helps. I won’t be hanging out on this message board much longer
gang, but it’s been a slice.

Alec.

50

Alec,

that’s bad news in the beginning of the week :frowning:(

Is there anything the QNX community can do to change your mind ??
What about a list with signs ?? Do you would return?

If there should be any way back for you, please go on with professional
marketing… it’s needed! If you don’t see a possibilty to stay with
QNX, thanks for all you did for the QNX community and all the best for
your future,

Jutta



Kevin Stallard wrote:

What the heck is going on? Alec… you can’t go!

Kevin
“Alec Saunders” <> alecs@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:aeirir$ghf$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

camz@passageway.com> > wrote in message news:aebt85$e96$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Igor Kovalenko <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote:
You guys must think that by adding more and more nonsense to this
thread you
make it more valuable and easy to follow…

I agree. I’m still waiting for a better explanation from Alec as to how
the use of the Momentics name removes confusion from the QNX product line.

I’m sorry about the delay Camz. It’s been an interesting week for me, the
upshot of which is that I am no longer a QSSL employee. I will try to
answer your question, however.

What QSSL has now is basically three brands – Momentics (developer
suites),
Neutrino (the OS), and QNX (the company). From a business perspective it
was done because:

  1. Brand building and maintenance is expensive and QSSL had too many
    brands.
    So, Photon, Phindows and QNET, for example, are now simply features of the
    OS where before we referred to them as separate products, and separate
    brands.
  2. RTP was a confusing brand – the word platform, in particular being
    used in a fashion that is outside the normal usage
  3. We wanted to be able to talk about all the great tools we built as well
    as the great OS, so it was desirable to separate the two from a messaging
    perspective. We wanted to be able to say that the tools were powerful,
    easy
    to use, comprehensive, and standards based. The core attributes of the OS
    are that it’s reliable, scalable, and standarsd based.
  4. We wanted the embedded world to KNOW that we had a tools offering,
    because it’s been a criticism for so long. Messaging that is made much
    simpler and clearer by naming it differently from the OS product.
  5. By bundling together things like BSP’s, processor support, DDK’s, and
    tools for Windows, Solaris and RTP into the same package, we’re delivering
    a much larger value to the customer than before and also, we think, a much
    larger value than some of our competitors do.

Hope that helps. I won’t be hanging out on this message board much longer
gang, but it’s been a slice.

Alec.

51

Thanks for the kind words, Jutta and Kevin. There’s no way to reverse the
decision that I know of. So, it’s onwards and upwards to the next
adventure. Thanks for all your patience and support over the last 12
months.

Over and out!

Alec.

52

I’m sorry about the delay Camz. It’s been an interesting week for me, the
upshot of which is that I am no longer a QSSL employee.

Ouch

53

Alec Saunders <alecs@qnx.com> wrote:

I’m sorry about the delay Camz. It’s been an interesting week for me, the
upshot of which is that I am no longer a QSSL employee.

You will be missed Alec. You have helped make QSSL make some tremendous
advancements in terms of how they relate to and interact with their customers
from a marketing perspective. The huge internal re-organization that was
culminated with the release of 6.2 Momentics was a huge undertaking.

I’d like to say that you did a great job, and I’d like thank you for that,
as well as tolerating the sometimes heated discussions here. Your openness
and frankness on some of the issues raised here was refreshing. It’s nice
to feel that we are being listened to and not just ingnored. You acheived
that.

Your successor has some pretty huge shoes to fill!

Cheers,
Camz

54

Wow! Thank you - that means a lot. And rest assured, it was never a
problem to “tolerate” heated discussions. I might have disagreed with what
was being said sometimes, but I would rather it was said publicly, to give
us a chance to address the issues, than muttered behind closed doors.

And now, gang, I’m going to unplug from this newsgroup. I’ve enjoyed you
all, and best wishes in the future.

Alec.

55

Alec Saunders wrote:

Wow! Thank you - that means a lot. And rest assured, it was never a
problem to “tolerate” heated discussions. I might have disagreed with what
was being said sometimes, but I would rather it was said publicly, to give
us a chance to address the issues, than muttered behind closed doors.

This parochial stale air behind muttered doors has the potential to kill
QSSL !!

It’s a DISASTER !

Armin



And now, gang, I’m going to unplug from this newsgroup. I’ve enjoyed you
all, and best wishes in the future.

Alec.

56

On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 01:43:42 -0700, Miguel Simon <simon@ou.edu> wrote:

Hi…
…
“Because now” -I answer- “if I want to convince you, a decision maker,
that it makes sense to buy ‘Momentics PE or SE’ to work on a PowerPC
board, I have to step back and utilize rtp6.1 to demonstrate my point.”

You should be able to get any version you want on an evaluation basis.
Please contact your sales rep.

(This is the same way it was done with QNX4, btw)

57

Miguel,

are you expecting that all companies are distributing a NC version
of their fully commercial products, software as well as hardware ??

If so, nobody would have been able to decide for QNX4 e.g. :wink:

Everyone who is seriously interested in a commercial product for
education or for industry is talking with the sales guys and there
are different possibilities to clearify questions. Often are offered
demonstrations or a timely limited evaluation version or anything
else. Also, most companies have special University conditions.

E.g. for QNX4 you could always sign for an eval. version for 30 days
or longer and I can’t imagine that there is not a similar way for
anyone who is seriously interested to use QNX6.2 for PPC.

Do you think it’s the wrong idea from QSSL that pot. customers have
to contact them when they want to try non x86 platforms ???

May be you are not aware how much illegal soft- and hardware (!)
copies are used in industry… and NA is no exception !!!

Cheers,
Jutta


Miguel Simon wrote:

Hi…

camz@passageway.com > wrote:

Alec Saunders <> alecs@qnx.com> > wrote:


It doesn’t look like it.

NC looks like a stripped-down version of the old RTP

You are right. This is obviously a step back, I would dare to say…

“But how would you dare to say that?” -I hear my boss, a decision maker,
ask.

“Because now” -I answer- “if I want to convince you, a decision maker,
that it makes sense to buy ‘Momentics PE or SE’ to work on a PowerPC
board, I have to step back and utilize rtp6.1 to demonstrate my point.”

“So, to have me, a decision maker, buy the latest rtp6.2-PE based on a
demonstration for a ppc platform, you, the developer, have to step back
and utilize rtp6.1?” - says my boss, the decision maker. For some reason
the decision maker repeated my last comment. Why? Things did not look
too good…

…gulp…

Regardless, I have to be honest, and regretfully I say:

“Yes, I am sorry, but I, the developer, have no other choice. You see,
rtp6.2-NC has no development for the ppc, just as it was for rtp6.0 two
years ago.”

A moment of silence -which to me, the developer, stretched an eternity.

“Yup, as far as I, the decision maker, am concerned, this is a step back
to two years ago. And what is ‘Momentics’ any way?”

I shrug. I know that he is not expecting an answer…I see the decision
maker go away, nodding, and I hear him say…

“I’ll be darn if I authorize to buy a product for $$$$.$$ dollars with
no solid demonstration, again. Being there, and have been bitten by that”.

At this point I, the developer, understood that lamentably there was no
new development environment for me… And on top of that rtp6.1A and
rtp6.2-NC have a broken speedo and pcnet driver. Oh well, thank goodness
QNX Neutrino still is better than any other choice out there.

And I, the developer, with pensive vision into the future, somehow
walked away still happy after all these years with QNX.

cheers…

Miguel.

58

Hi…

camz@passageway.com wrote:

Alec Saunders <> alecs@qnx.com> > wrote:


It doesn’t look like it.

NC looks like a stripped-down version of the old RTP

You are right. This is obviously a step back, I would dare to say…

“But how would you dare to say that?” -I hear my boss, a decision maker,
ask.

“Because now” -I answer- “if I want to convince you, a decision maker,
that it makes sense to buy ‘Momentics PE or SE’ to work on a PowerPC
board, I have to step back and utilize rtp6.1 to demonstrate my point.”

“So, to have me, a decision maker, buy the latest rtp6.2-PE based on a
demonstration for a ppc platform, you, the developer, have to step back
and utilize rtp6.1?” - says my boss, the decision maker. For some reason
the decision maker repeated my last comment. Why? Things did not look
too good…

…gulp…

Regardless, I have to be honest, and regretfully I say:

“Yes, I am sorry, but I, the developer, have no other choice. You see,
rtp6.2-NC has no development for the ppc, just as it was for rtp6.0 two
years ago.”

A moment of silence -which to me, the developer, stretched an eternity.

“Yup, as far as I, the decision maker, am concerned, this is a step back
to two years ago. And what is ‘Momentics’ any way?”

I shrug. I know that he is not expecting an answer…I see the decision
maker go away, nodding, and I hear him say…

“I’ll be darn if I authorize to buy a product for $$$$.$$ dollars with
no solid demonstration, again. Being there, and have been bitten by that”.

At this point I, the developer, understood that lamentably there was no
new development environment for me… And on top of that rtp6.1A and
rtp6.2-NC have a broken speedo and pcnet driver. Oh well, thank goodness
QNX Neutrino still is better than any other choice out there.

And I, the developer, with pensive vision into the future, somehow
walked away still happy after all these years with QNX.

cheers…

Miguel.

59

“Miguel Simon” <simon@ou.edu> wrote in message news:3D240ABE.20802@ou.edu…

Hi…

camz@passageway.com > wrote:

Alec Saunders <> alecs@qnx.com> > wrote:


It doesn’t look like it.

NC looks like a stripped-down version of the old RTP


You are right. This is obviously a step back, I would dare to say…

“But how would you dare to say that?” -I hear my boss, a decision maker,
ask.

[cut]

I support QSS move here. Apparently there was LOTS of people
using the 6.1 NC version for commercial use that didn’t pay for it.

By removing most of the stuff that professional people need
in the NC version they tried to insure people would have to
buy the SE or PE version. PowerPC developer definitely fits
the professional profile.

NC is in my view targeted at the casual user, to get a first look.
Then if they get serious, they can contact sales to get a step
further to obtain a full evaluation kit.

  • Mario
60

“Miguel Simon” <simon@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:3D248DD9.3020401@ou.edu…

Hi Mario…


[cut]

I support QSS move here. Apparently there was LOTS of people
using the 6.1 NC version for commercial use that didn’t pay for it.


I do not disagree with you wholly, but I doubt that there are illegal
commercial products out there as a result of rtp6.1. Don’t you think?

I know more people that are using the free version to develop a commercial
product and then people that have bought it. They all plan on buying it but
are waiting until product if finish. That can take a long time and is
definitely
lost of revenu for QSS.

Can you name a product that is making money out there which is based on
an illegal use of the rtp6.1 version of QNX?

I can’t even name a product running rtp 6.1 :wink: People don’t put
“QNX 6.1 inside” sticker on their machine.

I would tend to believe that companies have developers seat regardless.

RTP6.1 was a debugging run for QSSL, perhaps, and it was also a most
successful PR move -in my own opinion. More power to QSSL.



By removing most of the stuff that professional people need
in the NC version they tried to insure people would have to
buy the SE or PE version. PowerPC developer definitely fits
the professional profile.


Our robotics research work at the university uses rtp6.1 because of
obvious reasons. The utilization of rtp6.1 for such work does and
produces only two things: PR for QNX and some phd’s.

Because of some of the work mentioned above, R&D companies that again,
produce no commercial products -but generate run time licenses-, go
ahead and buy developers seat regardless. It is a win-win deal, I think,
and the basis for my previous dissertation.

bests…

Miguel.



NC is in my view targeted at the casual user, to get a first look.
Then if they get serious, they can contact sales to get a step
further to obtain a full evaluation kit.

  • Mario





    \