Suggestion: Keep BC2 along with BC3

[xtabber]

After working with BC3 for a while, I can see that the new design adds a lot of functionality that will appeal to developers and advanced users. I also understand that that kind of functionality is essential to remain competitive in the market for professional tools.

Unfortunately, this new functionality comes at the cost of the wonderful intuitive design which made BC2 such a great utility for everyone, including a lot of very unsophisticated PC users.

I have been a BC user for more than 10 years and I use it many times every day. While I have had occasion to take advantage of some of the new features in BC3, I still find BC2 much faster and easier to use for many routine tasks and will continue to use it much of the time.

I have also recommended BC2 to dozens, if not hundreds, of people over those 10+ years, and while some of them are likely candidates for BC3, many others are not. I simply could not recommend BC3 to many of the unsophisticated PC users I have recommended BC2 to, because the new interface is just too complicated to expect them to learn to use the program.

I actually see BC2 and BC3 as two different products, suitable for different target audiences, and I am very sorry to see that BC2 has been taken off the market.

I would like to suggest that BC2 be repositioned as a personal or light version, perhaps at a lower price (with no upgrade discount to BC3 or later versions) and made available as a current product for a more general audience than the intended audience for BC3.

[Michael Bulgrien]

BC2 had a learning curve too. As with any tool, the more you use it, the easier it gets. It's the same with BC3. Some BC2 users will actually find the learning curve to be more difficult than new users, because years of doing it "the old way" necessitates some unlearning. As a long-term BC3 beta tester, I find myself using BC3 for more things than I ever used BC2 for. Although there are still a few things that I miss from BC2, the new version of the product outshines BC2 in most areas if you take the time to learn how to use it correctly. While there are some problems with the refresh times in BC3, actual compare times are quicker overall, and the scripts I've used in BC2 run much faster under BC3.

As to using BC2 instead of BC3, that is your choice to make. I don't agree that BC2 should be left on the market and sold as a separate product. BC2 is available for download, and I believe that anyone that purchases a BC3 license will find that Scooter's licensing terms are very reasonable, and if a new user really wants to run BC2 instead, I would not be surprised if Tim would provide a license key to permanently activate BC2 for a new BC3 user. I don't expect that will happen too often for new users, though. I truly believe that the BC3 learning curve will be no greater than the BC2 learning curve for new users.

One of the goals in the re-design of BC3 was to simplify how sessions, settings, rules and configurations are managed, and make it them more user-friendly and intuitive than they were in BC2. Although I, too, have a good many years of BC2 experience under my belt, I actually find myself struggling whenever I go back and try using BC2 again. Things no longer seem as user-friendly and intuitive. I am used to the BC3 interface, and using it is easy...because it makes sense. I understand that long-term die-hard BC2 users may not share this same opinion initially... but I do believe that most users, once they truly tap into the strengths of BC3, won't want to go back to BC2... for most things, anyway.

[Zoë]

xtabber,

Are there specific issues that you're having with BC3 vs BC2? You mentioned the comparison results dialog already; are there others? BC3 is by no means a static product. v3.0.2 changed the folder compare's "sync" commands to make them closer to BC2's behavior because of customer feedback, and I fully expect us to tweak things further as more people comment.

To answer your primary question, no, we're not going to continue to sell BC2 as a separate product. BC3 is a natural evolution of Beyond Compare and it will continue to move forward. If it does something worse than BC2 then we want to hear about it so we can fix it. However, if there is something we can't/won't fix, and you want to continue using BC2, you're welcome do do so. Your license is good forever, and Michael is correct that we will send BC2 keys to BC3 licensees if they're requested

[JohnFLand]

There is still a need -- and hence market -- for BC2 for those who need true identicality between directory sets (BC3 currently can't preserve case, and BC2 can).

John Land

[Michael Bulgrien]

There is still a need -- and hence market -- for BC2

As Craig confirmed, purchasing BC3 entitles you to run BC2. Hence, the "market" can be satisfied as-is.

[Zoë]

Then ask us to support comparing/syncing filename case.

Beyond Compare is not set in stone. Let us know when the new version is worse than the old one and we'll work on improving it.

[Michael Bulgrien]

Then ask us to support comparing/syncing filename case.

I don't have BC2 installed anymore, so I cannot confirm what BC2 did in this area, but I do know that comparing/syncing filename case in a Widows environment has already been requested. I am one of the ones who requested it. We've been told that it is on the wish list... If it was already supported in BC2 (which I cannot confirm either way) then perhaps it needs to be bumped up in the list.

[Dave_L]

... comparing/syncing filename case in a Windows environment has already been requested. I am one of the ones who requested it. We've been told that it is on the wish list...

The issue also applies to a GNU/Linux environment in which NTFS (or FAT?) partitions are involved in a comparison. Chris said it was on the todo list here: http://www.scootersoftware.com/vbull...read.php?t=247

[Zoë]

It is on the todo list. Apparently I was too brief, because you're both missing the point. If there's an issue that BC3 does/doesn't do that makes it worse at something than BC2, we want to hear about it, whether it's already on the list or not. That's how we adjust priorities. Asking that we just make it easier to stick with BC2 doesn't improving BC3, and we aren't going to do it.

[Michael Bulgrien]

Thanks, Craig. I understood your point clearly...

...and I'm sure that John will appreciate knowing that this functionality has been upgraded from just being on the Wish List to being on the To-Do list... since the two are not always one and the same.

[Zoë]

John,

I've just posted a new approach we're considering for case sensitive filenames at http://www.scootersoftware.com/vbull...ad.php?p=15424. Please let us know what you think of it.

[JohnFLand]

Craig, I believe the suggested new functionality for BC3 would work very well, since it flags differences and allows correction by copying.

A "filename touch" (so that I only have to copy filenames, not content, between my local and remote systems -- linked by a relatively slow 1 Mb/s line) as suggested by Michael also would be much appreciated.

John Land

[DorothyFan1]

I believe compare by filename case should definitely be supported. Suppose I decided to update files based on case to distinguish between two files that are identical and wanted to compare them? BC3 would fail that comparison.

This is one feature BC3 should address.