On May 11, 2004, at 5:08 AM, Robert Covington wrote: > So I was thinking about adding a splash timer , and also either > limiting the app to no more than 2 open images until registered, or > things like that. > If I were the author of Compositor, a minimum of a splash timer like Graphic Converter (that gets more annoying as time goes on) makes good sense. My shareware uses a similar scheme to one you described, but I'm not particularly concerned about people hacking because it is a mini-PIM and doesn't compete for market share with the big boy apps. Compositor, however, directly competes with the big boys in its genre (i.e. photoshop etc.) at a drastically reduced price, and with almost identical features. People looking at PS are bound to give your application a try, and (here's the key) it is definitely worth their time to try and break your registration scheme given the price difference between PS and Compositor. Simply put, they have some incentive to break in. So, something more restrictive than an annoying countdown might even be warranted. Maybe give them full features for xx amount of days and cripple the application gradually until you reach some number of elapsed days. Of course, implementing only the method used by GraphicConverter might be enough. If GC has been around this long, they must be coercing enough people to register to keep the financial ship floating(a few assumptions there to be sure) Just my 2 cents. Apologize for the semi-ramble. Brian > I am not sure. Studies have shown that crippling an application, > smartly, can result in up to 5 times more registrations for shareware > products, simply because people really only pay for what they have to > (...as a group, that is. Individuals certainly vary). I'd like to read your reference on this if you have it. Some hard evidence would help all of evaluate this difficult topic.