Cutlist Plus Express download

[Jason Winterrowd]

I need to reinstall my Cutlist Plus Express after a computer crash but no longer have the download file. I emailed the company but the was told they no longer have the link for the express option. I still have all my activation codes to activate Express but they do not work with the new version of Cutlist Plus.

If anyone has the download file for Express they can send me I would be grateful. I don't want to upgrade to the $89 version because Express met all my need. Thanks!

[Bob Cooper]

I just ran into the same issue. I also would rather not spend $90 more as I only use this occasionally

[Ken Krawford]

While I'm a big fan of Cutlist, I find it laughable that a software developer "doesn't have a link" to an earlier product. They just want to force you into buying an updated version.

[Jim Becker]

OTOH, software companies commonly remove old-old versions of downloads because they cannot or do not want to provide support, especially with changes in OS over time,

[Mark Bolton]

OTOH, software companies commonly remove old-old versions of downloads because they cannot or do not want to provide support, especially with changes in OS over time,

So then just dont support it.. but they can still offer it for download to anyone who paid and had previous access. Just because someone reinstalls an old version doesnt mean you have to support it in perpetuity.

[Jim Becker]

I'm not debating whether or not the practice is a good thing, Mark. I'm just pointing out that it's common in the software industry and the prerogative of the software manufacturer as to whether or not they continue to allow downloads of old-old software perpetually, with or without support. That's their business decision, just as it's each of our business decisions on whether to upgrade and keep current applications we've paid to license initially. In the case of the OP, it appears that the developer has chosen not to offer the older application for whatever reason. We can be unhappy about it, but they do have that right to do so unless they put in the original licensing agreement that the software would be available perpetually for download.

There are a lot of applications I've paid to license over the years that are no longer available for download...at least in the versions I licenced.

[Mark Bolton]

I'm not debating whether or not the practice is a good thing, Mark. I'm just pointing out that it's common in the software industry and the prerogative of the software manufacturer as to whether or not they continue to allow downloads of old-old software perpetually, with or without support. That's their business decision, just as it's each of our business decisions on whether to upgrade and keep current applications we've paid to license initially. In the case of the OP, it appears that the developer has chosen not to offer the older application for whatever reason. We can be unhappy about it, but they do have that right to do so unless they put in the original licensing agreement that the software would be available perpetually for download.

There are a lot of applications I've paid to license over the years that are no longer available for download...at least in the versions I licenced.

Me too. But that doesnt mean you just lay down. Its a given its ultimately the end users responsibility to save all the install files in a standard backup. My point is, the more we lay down for this, the more we get "laid down". And now, a lot of titles whether you save your install files or not, the developers via online registration, will void your old install.

Its anyones prerogative to be shady. It doesnt mean you have to just open your mouth and let the air-o-plane fly in and be spoon fed.

Arbitrarily defending the developer is a vote for us all to have to pay in perpetuity for a piece of software that was working just fine for our needs but due to the all mighty buck (even though its unsupported).. poof.

Stop being so accepting of being bled dry all the time.

[Jim Becker]

I'm curious about what the solution might be to change...the industry? I certainly don't accept the practice as a good thing but I do accept that it's an industry practice. Regulation isn't going to happen and merely buying a license, which requires accepting the ELUA to complete, locks the consumer into the whims of the software developer. Legally. Perpetual licenses are also dying as a software distribution method...you want it? It's a subscription. I'm ok with that for the stuff I use as I'm a person who prefers to keep things current all the time. It's more difficult for the casual user, however.

[ChrisA Edwards]

I think a backup of one's personal system is called for, never know when you might need it.

[Mark Bolton]

I'm curious about what the solution might be to change...the industry? I certainly don't accept the practice as a good thing but I do accept that it's an industry practice. Regulation isn't going to happen and merely buying a license, which requires accepting the ELUA to complete, locks the consumer into the whims of the software developer. Legally. Perpetual licenses are also dying as a software distribution method...you want it? It's a subscription. I'm ok with that for the stuff I use as I'm a person who prefers to keep things current all the time. It's more difficult for the casual user, however.

No disagreement there really is no decent solution with the industry on mass either already moved, or in the process of moving, to subscription/pay-in-perpetuity business plan. They'll force it down your throat whether you like it or not which's been the trajectory for 30 years now. Its not a consumer driven market any longer.

Any real world solution (never will be, or should be, legislation) would require consumers to vote with their wallet and heavily feedback developers that they are unhappy, or flat out unwilling, to be forced into paying in perpetuity. Consumers as a whole simply dont do that any longer. Theyve been re-programmed. They just lay down, get rolled over, and ground down.

I completely agree with the position you often make playing devils advocate to paying in perpetuity. The cost of software development, the benefit of being current and updated in real time, how fast tech/and software are moving now, and perhaps the fact that it means you hopefully have a developer with a predictable revenue steam that will remain solvent so a program/app you use regularly will have the best chance of going the long haul. Though thats often not the case even with large operations like Autodesk as an example.

But the simple point is there is no viable reason for a company to not keep past paid-downloaded titles available on a server for customers who paid for them in good faith and require no support other than access to the .exe. Data storage cost now as compared to the past are as close to zero as ever and getting lower every day. Software development has gone from boxed titles with discs, jewel cases, documentation, to nothing but 1's and 0's (cheaper), no shipping, no inventory at staples and so on, zip. A win win in the profit column. The downside is tech moving so fast now the need for constant update and new versions to remain current for those who need it which is the key to me "for those who need it".

Jason speaks clearly to someone who was perfectly fine with his version and even though he perhaps should have saved the installs to multiple locations, redundant formats, in the event of a catastrophic data loss (house burns down and doesnt have a cloud copy or a copy of his trivial software titles on a thumb drive in his safety deposit box) he doesnt. The developer could easily leave a sweet taste and satisfy paid customers in perpetuity with effectively zero support cost by offering the older versions for download referenced off a sales/serial number list or whatever. But instead they use the hostage tactic of simply taking them out of circulation forcing a potential return customer to re-buy OR more than likely, get forced into the new subscription model if thats all they offer so they in effect cant buy anything. They just have the option of paying in perpetuity for something they could buy once if that suits their needs.

The motivation for developers to get paid for staying current and innovating should be to attract new customers to their titles and to attract existing customer purchase the upgrades for new features. If the customer feels the upgrade is worthy, they pay, if they dont they have the option to stay where they are. If they skip 5 upgrades and on the 6th there is a feature they really want, the upgrade across 5 past upgrades will cost more. Their choice. That all goes away with subscription. You pay regardless of your needs.

Devils advocate support of this subscription stuff is fine, but do a tally of what people are paying in perpetuity for now. Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, TV, on and on. Now were into software and right on down the line. Its ridiculous. A lot of people (myself included) have actively worked to source non-subscription based software for personal and business needs and now are being shafted by these companies abandoning the cost for upgrade option and moving to annual subscriptions. Sketchup is a perfect example that will likely lose a lot of its long time users.