Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sundc!texsun!letni!merch!spudge!johnm
From: johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows Shareware
Summary: poor quality results from $ and difficulty
Keywords: shareware, conventions, community
Message-ID: <20689@spudge.UUCP>
Date: 27 Aug 90 21:40:15 GMT
References: <10297@life.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch)
Organization: Friends of Guru Bob
Lines: 19

I would have to contend that much of the Windows shareware (and freeware)
is poor because of the enormous costs of developing for Windows.  One of those
costs is the monetary one; a copy of the SDK plus MSC 6.0 plus Windows 3.0 is
far more than most people can afford for "hobby" programming.  A quick glance
at a couple of ads indicates that even with discount mail-order prices the
bill will tote up to more than $700.  This kind of thing will lead to people
putting a shareware label on almost anything they generate (no matter what
the quality) in the hope of getting _something_ back on their investment.

Another cost is the difficulty of programming for the environment will 
lead to the same type of response.  "I've spent nearly 60 hours doing this 
program, I'm not about to just give it away..."

If we are going to see more programmers tackle Windows then the costs of
development need to come down and more people who have already done real
applications (not just the Microsoft toy examples) will have to release
their source.

John Munsch