Re: Shrink-wrap

["Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM>]

> Bev quoted Emily:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  --
> Emily Skarzenski <71220 -dot- 341 -at- COMPUSERVE -dot- COM> wrote--
>   Of course, RoboHelp has drawbacks, too. In some ways, it's
>   quirky and difficult.   (The brand-new version [3.0] is still
>   shrink-wrapped on my desk--haven't had ...[snip]
> ===================
> Then said:
> >meaning and I fear that it will spread. Twice now, from
> >different people where I work, I've heard "shrink-wrapped" used
> >to mean software or projects that have been shelved (canceled).

Then Rosie said...
> I've heard a completely different meaning.  In a meeting here, it was used
> to distinguish applications we buy and supply to our users (MS Mail, MS
> Word, etc.) from the applications we develop for our users.  In fact, we
> considered using "Shrink-wrapped" (okay, the folks in the meeting considered
> it, *I* didn't :-)) as the identifier in the Incident database for calls our
> Support folks get regarding software we haven't developed.

Well, Rosie... This is the way I've always thought of "shrink-
wrapped" software. It's the stuff that you can buy "off-the-
shelf", like at Egghead or someplacelikethat. When you work for
small software shops that cater to a very small market and
customize each installation, you don't shrink-wrap your software.
Heck... Sometimes it never even makes it to floppy... It gets
installed via modem or even gets programmed right there on site.

I actually felt kinda proud the first time one of my books got
*bound* and *shrink-wrapped* instead of stuffed in a binder and
dropped on somebody's desk! Made me feel like I'd hit the big
time!

So, yeah... I can understand why they'd consider in-house apps
one way and "shrink-wrapped" stuff another. ;-)

Sue Gallagher
StarBase Corp, Irvine CA
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com