Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ns.uoregon.edu!oregon!dalbrich From: dalbrich@oregon.uoregon.edu Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: windows 3.0 Message-ID: <20554.27d95869@oregon.uoregon.edu> Date: 10 Mar 91 05:49:29 GMT References: Distribution: usa Organization: University of Oregon Lines: 23 I agree, however I think I understand why they did not. The problem is that the key useful Windows utilities have retail counterparts which stand to make more money. For example, wouldn't it be great if paintbrush were more full featured, but Zsoft developed paintbrush for Microsoft and actually does sell a retail painting program for Windows which is a more full featured program. In the same way, you might like to see a more full featured word processor than Write, but Microsoft probably would not want to release a product that might compete with Word for Windows. The last reason I can think of is that Windows applications take a lot of effort to create. Development time to create really good applications is expensive. I think most companies making really good Windows applications would opt to sell retail (including Microsoft) when they stand to make so much more money that way. I'd like to see an enhanced Windows, but I doubt it will be. -Dan In article , hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) writes: > Has it ever occured to MicroSoft oft that people might be interested in an > Enhanced Edition of Windows 3.0? You see, in addition to the mouse, they also > bundle a few pieces of useful programs such as Write, Paintbrush, etc. But each > of them is far below ever shareware standard! Can't they add a little > enhancements to each program and perhaps sell the package for a little more? > I for one certainly like to do that.