Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:52058 comp.windows.ms:2581
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,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows-the interface that may never happen...
Message-ID: <3528@rex.cs.tulane.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 90 06:28:37 GMT
References: <4ad6ea11.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <9814@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Lines: 116
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <9814@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes:
>In my opinion, the reason that Windows Software is so expensive
>is that there are few people buying it.  You must also consider
>the level of service which is offered by the Windows version of
>the software.
No one's complaining about the cost of Windows itself (IMHO reasonable $.)
Lape, myself, and several other posters were commenting on the high
cost of the development tools.

>Windows does make programming easier, if you consider what it would
>take for a given programmer to develop a similar interface for
>their individual program.  It is not easier then writing a program
>for a DOS machine which is expected to only be running that one
>application.
Jeff, you're the first guy I've ever heard say that Windows EVER made
programming easier (:-).  Windows provides two significant benefits
(again IMHO) to users:  A consistent interface and a bag-on-the-side
of DOS that allows multitasking.

>Also, the comments regarding excessive cost of the development tools
>and their effect on the cost of subsequent software is also somewhat
>out of place.
Why?  We're in that subset represented by the intersection of {Programmers}
and {not wealthy}.  :-)  Seriously, the cost of the libraries is a bit
much, especially confusing since MS supposedly is hungry for folks to
port and write new apps...all of which will feed their userbase, etc.

>It is only in the past 2 years that you have been able to go out and
>buy C compilers for under $300.  The cost of the compilers did not
>stifle the development of PD or Shareware software.
Not so, I brought MS C r3.0 in '84 (?) for $280, and it was by no means
the cheapest one available even then.

>The cost of the Development kits also do not have a large impact on
>the cost of the software purchase price.  Think about it, even if
>a software company must invest $10,000 in development tools for
>Windows this is far less than the cost of the people time to develop
>an interface with similar capabilities.
OK, valid point if you're talking about Ashton-Tate, Lotus, or even
a middle-size company...but the shareware and PD folks provide
a lot of the software for the PC, and the outlay of even just the $300-
$400 for the libraries alone can be a moderately large expense.  Witness
that almost no shareware/PD has been developed for Windows, which is
what motivated this set of postings in the first place.

>The higher cost of Windows software is due primarily to the smaller
>market, and the necessity to compare the features of the Windows
>version of a software package to similar packages written solely for
>the DOS environment.
MS is a big company with lots of market research/analyst type folks;
I'm hard pressed to believe that their prices are driven solely by the
amortization schedule of the R&D effort.  They charge what they feel
the market will bear, and that's fine.  The lack of cheap tools and
the MS's failure to provide a uniform method (read: program) to port
existing applications to the Windows environment will keep many folks
from programming for Windows.  And thats a darn shame.

> ... example of economies of scale causing MCA architecture to be
> ... more expensive than ISA deleted.

>Windows has not caught on over the years due to the lack of the
>environment to actually perform in the ways it should.  This was
>partly due to the environment itself, but also due to the hardware
>platform it was written for.  Now that 286 and more importantly 386
>and 486 machines are starting to make in roads, there can be a
>market for a highly graphical and multitasking OS.  In the end we
>will all end up moving to OS/2 or Unix with Windows compatibility
>boxes.  But for now people will start to write for Windows.
'286 machines started to make inroads in 1985, and are no longer
considered particularly avante garde.  Bigger, faster hardware platforms
have been consistently developed and put into the marketplace, and we
keep hearing about how Windows is just around the corner in terms of
general acceptance...as soon as the hardware gets just a little bit
bigger/faster/niftier.  We've now at a point where X-Windows (no
relation to the Microsoft product :-) is a viable alternative to run
on the faster PCs, and its bloody well FREE.  (Well, heh-heh, the
non-generic hardware-tuned drivers aren't usually free...)  My point
is that Windows should have been a huge benefit to SMALL PCs, and
yet MS is now trying to convince users that its the hot ticket for
PCs big enough to run a real OS (unix) with a real GUI (X-Windows).

>When Borland finally keeps its promises to offer a Windows Development
>Environment, then the competition will cause a reduction in the cost
>of the development tools, just as they did in DOS.
I honestly thought Borland had dropped this idea.  Are they still going
to do it?  I sure hope so, that would be great!

>But in the mean time, expect to pay more for the use of the Windows
>GUI and all of the benefits which comes with it.  And if you don't
>think the benefits are worth the cost, don't use it.  No one is
>forcing you.
Look, Jeff, no one's flaming Windows.  (well, I did, but only a little!)
We're not talking about USING Windows, we're trying to vent a little
displeasure over the cost of the DEVELOPMENT TOOLS for Windows.  That is,
we'd like to write apps and play around with Windows, but find the initial
cost is too darn high.

>On a side comment.  comp.windows.ms used to be a newsgroup which
>provided assistance to those of us who believe in the Windows
>environment and would assist each other in trying to maximize
>its benefits.  I believe we are losing that spirit.
The best benefit I can think of would be to make the development tools
cheap...then you might see more programs written for Windows.

>These are my opinions, but my opinions are Public Domain.
>- Jeff (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)

Well, if I was Bill Gates (I'd retire to Bali :-) no, really, if I was
Bill Gates and I wanted to release a product like Windows that I hoped
would gain general acceptance, and especially if my product was as hard
to program in as Windows, then I'd be tempted to give the development
tools away to any programmer that wanted them.  Biased?  Naw!

Thanks for reading,
Dave
doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu