I use to buy my software and lately in the last 3 years or so, I have only been using free software. It is of my opinion that the paid software really works the same as the free software I use now. What is your opinion?
I still use the bundled software that came with my computers and laptops at home for basic needs. At one point in time, I used to buy internet security software, and pay for its renewal year after year, until I found out that the free antivirus available online is just as good, or sometimes, even better than paid ones. Most of the software I use now are free, and I have not felt the need to pay for any premium options, except a few like Microsoft Publisher and Nitro PDF Professional. So, yes, free software is more than enough for my day to day needs
Paid software don't usually work the same as the free software but they somehow suffice the need. If you are use to photoshop and replace it with GIMP, you won't get as much quality as you have with Photoshop but you'll have to train yourself again for the work around of GIMP so are those other graphic software like Inkscape. MS office differs from LibreOffice too.
Free software has a limited of functions instead of the full paid software. I would first download the free software and try it out if its good or not. Then, maybe I will buy the full verizon of that products that I like.
Yes that is true that their functions are limited, but I think they offer the same purpose. I think the paid software is more management and information available where the free is just basic. I called Norton once when I had the paid version to help me with a malicious virus I had. They wanted to charge me $100.00 to remove the virus. That turned me off paid virus software. I have since learned a lot about virus since. There are so many forums that will help you if your computer has a virus.
I use the free software and most of the time I can get away without buying the full version. I only buy the full version if I really need all the features unlocked. Most people can get by with the free software. Times are tough right now, so I would prefer to download the free software and just use that one to save money.
I try to always use free software like MSE since with a bit of knowledge and common sense, they can work just as well as paid software. That, and most of the time, I won't even need/use all of the features in paid software like Photoshop. Though if I must use paid software, I have other methods of "purchasing" a copy for myself.
I really like open source software. I find that many of the free software programs have extra functions that it's paid version doesn't have. Some of the paid versions add those functions in later updates. My favorite open source programs are the MS Office type ones. Still, there are some types of programs where a paid option is best like accounting or a very niche specific type of software.
I'm a big fan of free software. My McAffee antivirus software allowed a particularly nasty virus onto my laptop. A computer savvy friend removed it with a free programme, then put Avast free antivirus on the computer, instead of McAffee, which I was paying for. Not only does my computer now run faster, I haven't had any more problems with viruses.
Some of them are free software yet they aren't opensource. Meaning you as a user can't edit things on it for you own. AS to anti virus, I like Clamwin which is also free.
Well Norton as a company are honestly pretty much criminals, so that one isn't surprising. As for paid software, it really depends. Things like Photoshop really just cannot even be compared to by a program like GIMP, whereas I'm sure Open Office is a perfectly fine replacement to MS Office.
In the case of, say Photoshop - if you plan on getting into a career in design or any other field that uses it, you pretty much need to know how to use it. I've never seen any studios or agencies using Gimp. I do use some free software such as AVG Free edition, CCleaner, and Malwarebytes because they work very well. My only gripe is that sometimes freeware apps will constantly keep nagging you with minor updates and each time you install them they try to get you to install some toolbar or other adware.
Freeware, shareware, and openware are fine so long as you know what you are going to do and what resources you need to do that. Paid for software generally doesn't have much for it besides seeming more legit, and having a readymade source of information. I generally rely more on the first group then the second and even then it is possible to get ah "free" editions of the same.
That isn't true. Unless the free software doesn't have a commercial edition/version, they don't offer the user the full capabilities of the software. The most useful example here is a free version of an Antivirus software with very limited computer protection abilities. Now compare that with the commercial version and then see the big difference between the two. And just to advise, some free software are actually spyware.
Well if you're not a high maintenance user then you can just use a free software, because it does the basics. Now if you want a software that has those added features that is not available on the free version, then go for the paid version. As for me, I'm content with the service of free softwares.
Yeah that is quite obvious that the paid versions are having most of the features and they can provide at maximum what you need at the same time free ones are restricted and there always some minuses which we gotta experience with it so yeah this is the way how it is and surely we can do better and at the same time think of growing in a certain way.Depends on the need what suits us the most which one we find more comfortable.
I go open source all the way. Or at least, part of the way. Most of the software I use is free and it works perfectly fine. I'll only pay for software if I can't find a free open source alternative. Why pay for software when you can use an alternative which does the job quite as well?
I would definitely say otherwise. I'll use Photoshop & GIMP as an example. Both of them are image editing software, so you'd think, how are they different? For one thing, GIMP is free. Photoshop isn't. So why do we hear of so many people, especially photographers, use Photoshop so often, and hardly (if ever) hear about GIMP? The reason is quite obvious: features. There is a big difference in the amount of features GIMP has as compared to Photoshop. GIMP is basically Photoshop, but stripped of so many components. It's simple, but it doesn't come packing a punch. The price tag on Photoshop, even though it's high, it's well worth the price. The amount of features Photoshop has will have you set for life for all your image editing needs. Free software and Paid software sure do have a lot of differences, even when you open them straight out of the virtual box.
It depends. I use a mix of commercial software and freeware/open software. For example Gimp or Inkscape don't work the same as Photoshop and Illustrator. One of the good things about commercial software is usually they have better support and are updated more often. I've used some open software where the developers work on their spare time and sometimes they just stop updating it, so then when you update your OS the app stops working. I usually go with freeware for small apps like video player, rar opener, etc.
I think what ultimately matters is if it wastes resources and bloats the machine its running on then you probably don't need it. Regardless of whether its free or paid I've found some software just uses up way too much memory and space to perform some task and I don't believe its necessary. I remember when open source web browsers like Firefox were first released they were lightning fast without using much memory, the installs were really small and they received a steady stream of updates and improvements. Now the same web browsers are bloated take up way too much space and are subject to various exploits and malware. Same thing with Windows OS, it feels bloated with a ridiculous amount of updates needed all the time which don't seem to do much but force restarts and its not at all as efficient as an older OS like Windows 2K Server Edition. I think the potential is present for this stuff to be just as good and I say that not having used the other which is unquestionable since it simply works, just for PCs sake I only make mention of the fact that it could be good I guess if it wanted maybe.
