>>If I'm going to use a product, especially where I'm going to be charging money for the use of that product, I buy it. I buy an awful lot of stuff to be able to properly evaluate it, and it ends up on the shelf collecting dust afterwards. That's called a part of the cost of doing business.
>
>I don't know about you, but I don't have that much money to buy every product i'm possible interessted in.
>

I don't, but many of the products have an evaluation or demo versions, normally at a fraction of the product cost, or a limioted license version. And this is what I buy to evaluate products where I can.

I'm constantly evaluating new installation products, because that's a big part of my business; I get demo versions where I can, and in rare instances where a product isn't available in a limited license or demo version, but where it's got features that I find compelling, I'll buy it, even if it ends up accumulating dust on the shelf.

One thing I don't do is grab someone else's licensed, full product copy and tyake it to play with it, for any number of reasons. One of the more compelling reasons is that I'm making them violate the terms of their license agreement, so I'm putting them in more jeopardy than I am incurring grabbing the software from them.

If I know someone who has it, I'll often ask them to give me a brief dog-and-pony show, and play around with their copy or look at the tutorial that accompanies their licensed copy.

>When i buy a TV and after I installed it. I find the quality is not acceptable, I can go back to the store switch the TV for another TV with the desired quality.

A very different scenario; you take back the TV and get a different one more to your liking; you've already spent the money. You don't go in, steal one, and then throw it away if you don't like it. If you buy one and change your mind and want a different one, you may have to pay a restocking fee, or may be limited to exchanging for a different one of equivalent or greater cost, or something similar. But you don't go in, and then take a bunch of TVs home, and return some or all of them, and not pay for any of them.

I'd assume that when you're considering buying a new car, you go to the car dealer and take out a demonstrator for a test drive, or with a good dealer who's confident in the cars they sell, maybe arrange to borrow or rent it at low-cost for the weekend to get a feel for it.

Maybe you borrow a friend's car to take the test drive. Unlike software, only one person can drive it at a time, so that the car manufacturer doesn't have the situation where he only sells one, but a dozen copies that he wasn't paid for end up on the street.

I have no problem with the idea of evaluation copies; many software companies offer a 30 day trial period, where you can return the software if it doesn't do what it says it will do, or offer a limited time demo version at little or no cost. I'm far more likely to try a product under these terms - if the software vendor doesn't make it convenient for me to try their software at little or no cost, I'm not likely to consider using it. It implies that they don't have a great deal of confidence in their own product.

As a software vendor, I should have the right to determine if I'm going to make an evaluation copy available, or if I'm going to offer a customer the right to try my product and return it if it doesn't meet the customer's needs. That car you borrow from the dealer to evaluate for the weekend - if you smash up the front end and make it unsellable when you test it out, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you (or your insurance company) will have to pay for repairs or buy it outright.

I also object to the people who figure that they can take my old version and use it when I get a new version. I don't give someone my January MSDN set when the April distribution comes out, either.

>I do not have enough money to buy another TV. With software I cannot do this, so I find it very acceptable to try before I Buy, If this cannot be done legally, I've no problems with trying it illegally.

I do have a problem with this, which is why you're now on the list of people I'd never let borrow a piece of commercial software from me, even if I wasn't using it and you claimed that your disk #2 was bad. I'd be worried you were just pirating it.

>And honestly I cannot imagine that companies have very much problems with that, because if I have doubts I'll not buy this product anyway.
>

See the above.

>If i have to choose between the following situations:
>1. 10% of the companies have bought the product and 90% don't know the product.
>2. 10% of the companies have bought the product and 50% has an illegal evaluation copy and 40% don't know the product.
>I'll choose the latter.
>

Which simply makes it clear to me that your ethics are questionable as far as software licensing. If I were a development product vendor, I probably wouldn't want sell you my product under any circumstance if I could avoid it, because you'd become an instant source of pirated software. You'd lend your copy out, and would take no steps to assure that the guy who borrowed it from you had even the limited sense of ethical behavior you've been spouting.

>Note that because of this illegal trying software we all use MS products and buy them when we need to. This is a strong advertisement for the MS products. If this did not happend I wonder if we would be working with such beatifull software these days.
>

Remind me never to own a candy store in your neighborhood; you'd probably be inclined to grab a chocolate bar off the shelf, take a bite, and not pay for it if you didn't like it...

Some of us have an MSDN Universal Subscription, which includes a bunch of stuff I'll never use in all probability. Having legal licenses for my development products makes the issue of intellectual property rights for anything I develop that much cleaner, and leaves no room for the vendor to have to question whether the copy I'm using is legal, up-to-date, and should receive the best possible level of support they can provide - MS knows that I've paid for my copy of the product.

>This illegal use of software (how rejectable it is), is a trigger for companies to keep the prices low. Note that the countries where piracy is most common, the economical standard is very high.
>
>You'll be putting your head into the sand, if you 'll say that without piracy the world looks better. I'll bet if there was no piracy, We would still be in the stage of using Word 6.0 or WP 5.0 Or Foxbase+.

I'm not going to debate you - let's leave it at I find your sense of ethics questionable at best, and I disagree strongly with your position. My work has value, and if I feel that I don't want to let you use it without the necessary payment, I'm entitled to make that decision, just like if you aren't happy with the price and terms I place on my product, you're free not to use it - you can always roll your own, or use some other competing product if my terms are unacceptable. Don't tell me how much help you're giving me by stealing my work product, because you can't afford to buy it legally.