Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!doerschu From: doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Windows-the interface that may never happen... Message-ID: <3493@rex.cs.tulane.edu> Date: 5 Jun 90 06:38:04 GMT References: <1990Jun4.183206.23153@cs.utk.edu> Distribution: usa Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA Lines: 33 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Keywords: In article <1990Jun4.183206.23153@cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: > > With the rollout of Windows 3.0 comes much to do about nothing!! >When will the big guys learn that nothing will replace DOS until >software for the new "thing" is on the Public Domain! Look how much >software there is on BBS's across America and see how many require >windows. Don't know about this, if you mean that the product (i.e. Windows itself) should be PD, I don't really see why; its a commercial product after all. If you mean PD (or shareware) software to run under Windows, then yes: there is some very fine software out there but the offerings are pretty sparse. > Until MicroSoft offers libraries for the masses, nothing will >change. Currently, if I want to develop software, I have to spend >hundreds. I bought Quick C 1.01 for $52 new, the upgrade for $45, why >not libraries for windows at $80? >-bryon lape- I couldn't agree more. MS wants an absurd amount of money for the libraries. I would have thought that the relative lack of support from 3rd party software vendors for a now mature (no flames, please!... Windows has been out for years: mature, yes. good, maybe!) system product would have clued them in, but they persist in their pricing strategies. Certainly, this is not the only reason why many products are not ported to Windows, but it certainly puts a damper on things. Bryon Lape has, IMHO, hit the nail on the head: why not an $80 development system? Thanks for reading, Dave doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu