wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (06/05/90)
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. 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-
doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) (06/05/90)
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
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (06/06/90)
From: doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) >> 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? Is this the reason why products written for Windows seem to be so expensive? It may just be my imagination, but I've been looking for software that runs, or soon will run, under Windows and almost invariably I find only the high-end expensive stuff. There are several > $500 DTP packages written for Windows, for instance, but none of the popular < $200 products like Publish-It!, First Publisher, or Express Publisher do. Ditto with paint and comms packages. Is Windows the reason why these things are so expensive? I saw a product announcment in Info World, current issue, for an OCR program (I forget who the manufacturer is). The non-Windows version lists for $295. The Windows version (**same version number**) was well over $500! Is this what we have to look forward to in the wonderful world of MS Windows software? I have no idea what the Windows API looks like but it seems if it were properly designed it should make it EASIER (hence cheaper) to write applications. Bill Gates didn't get rich by being stupid, but it's hard to see the smarts in a strategy which seems almost deliberately designed to limit the potential market for your product by making it hard or expensive for people to port to it. So what's the story here? ---Peter
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (06/06/90)
In article <4ad6ea11.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > > > > >From: doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) > >>> 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? >> >>I couldn't agree more. MS wants an absurd amount of money for the >>libraries. > > Is this the reason why products written for Windows seem to > be so expensive? > No. It could be that the sellers just think "Oh Oh Windows adds so much value to my product I'll charge more". Or it could be that Windows programs are more expensive to develop. I have written some. They are indeed more expensive. First you have to learn how Windows works. Its not straightforward. Even for people who have programmed the Mac. I takes months. Second, you have to program for Windows in **UNHOSTED** C. That is, the Windows envrionment is and unhosted C environment. A large fraction of standard C language libray functions DON'T WORK: scanf, printf, any form of stdio, puts, putc, malloc, free, the list goes on and on. And the ways you have to do the equivalent in Windows are messy. You (if you follow the rules) HAVE to use mixed model programming (unless you program is small enough to be medium model). The pointers you get from Windows equivalent of malloc may BECOME INVALID without your doing anything. It's more complicated than a simple change of char * to char **. Windows graphics calls are fairly simple. But it takes a bit of work to get them all just exactly in the right order. And so on. Doug McDonald
cg108fep@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) (06/06/90)
In article <4ad6ea11.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: }From: doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) }>> 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? } } I have no idea what the Windows API looks like but it seems if it } were properly designed it should make it EASIER (hence cheaper) } to write applications. Bill Gates didn't get rich by being stupid, } but it's hard to see the smarts in a strategy which seems almost } deliberately designed to limit the potential market for your product } by making it hard or expensive for people to port to it. So what's } the story here? } } ---Peter Let's start a letter writing campaign to Bill Gates! Windows development for the masses! Up with proletariat programmers! Anyone have his address? -- Dennis "Still looking for a job" Lou | DISCLAIMER: Disclaimers don't work! pa1568@sdcc13.ucsd.edu | or cg108fep@icogsci1.ucsd.edu | icogsci1 = flaky; sdcc13 = best bet;
doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) (06/07/90)
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
ckindel@cs.arizona.edu (Charles E. Kindel, Jr. [Tigger]) (06/07/90)
In article <4ad6ea11.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > From: doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) > > >> 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!... [deleted] > >things. Bryon Lape has, IMHO, hit the nail on the head: why not an > >$80 development system? > > Is this the reason why products written for Windows seem to > be so expensive? [stuff deleted] > > I have no idea what the Windows API looks like but it seems if it > were properly designed it should make it EASIER (hence cheaper) > to write applications. Bill Gates didn't get rich by being stupid, > I've been following this thread with interest...but I had to finally butt in. I have been developing Windows apps for about 1.5 years now. I love it. The API is rich and powerful and well designed. Inter application communication (DDE), multi-tasking, true GUI, and support for DOS apps are a few reasons I like it. Yes, development tools for Windows are expensive. There is good reason. The complexity of an API such as Windows (or PM for that matter) is such that it is nearly impossible to produce a professional development system inexpensively. There are tools comming out that will make it possible for small developers to afford to write in Windows. They will take a bit of time to surface, but they will come (much as TurboPascal and TurboC did). Microsoft could probably sell the _libraries_ from the Windows SDK for about $80, but what about the three volumes of documentation, resource editing tools, and special CodeView for Windows debugger? Would you be happy with some libraries and maybe an online help system? Maybe for writing DOS apps, but not for Windows! "Bill Gates didn't get rich by being stupid..." Nope, he sure didn't! It is important to remember that Mr. Bill has been advocating Windows since 1983. He begged developers to develop for Windows...but nobody listend, and maybe it was just as well...but _now_ we have Windows 3.0! For those of you who haven't seen or used Windows 3.0 here are some things to "push you over the fence"... Today Microsoft announced that it has sold over 100,000 copies of Windows 3.0 plu"Several hundred thousand" upgrades to 3.0 since May 22. People, that is an awful lot of copies! This is no fluke, Windows is going to be big... real big! All the big boys have finally announced commitment to Windows. Lotus, Word Perfect, Ashton Tate, ect... The small boys are there too. Check out the MSWIN forum on CompuServe for all the shareware that's available... Also check out the 50,000+ messages posted there in the last week and a half! One last note on the expense of the development tools. I saved my money for the SDK and C5.1 last spring as a _student_. If you really want to get into it, you can. But no one _ever_ said that developing for a GUI was easy. Plan for about 3-6 months before you are productive...then be prepared to be a programmer in demand. Charles Kindel President, Kindlco Software Systems CIS PPN 71551,1445 -- // ckindel@cs.arizona.edu CompuServe: 71551,1445 // Charles E. Kindel, Jr. (Kindlco Software Systems) // 4225 N. First Ave, Suite 1315, Tucson, AZ, 85719, (602) 887-3359
nfs@cs.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) (06/07/90)
With all the discussion of how Windows 3.0 will have trouble because the SDK costs too much, or its incompatibility with previous versions, or its incompatibility with the OS/2 API, I have yet to see the following addressed. I own a Toshiba 5100, which has a 16MHz '386, 2Mb RAM, an EGA card, and a 40Mb disk. I drive a multiscanning monitor from the EGA card. I was never happy with Windows/386 (v2.03) because it wouldn't swap applications to disk - with only 2Mb of RAM, it just wasn't a useful program. I looked forward to Windows 3.0, since it swaps applications happily. When my copy of Windows 3.0 arrived from Microsoft (in 3 days rather than the quoted four weeks!), a quick glance at the manual revealed a requirement for 6-8Mb of hard disk space. I freed up some space, installed the package, and discovered the disk estimates weren't far off - C:\WINDOWS ate 7.5Mb of my hard disk. If I want to swap, I need (probably) another 2-3Mb of disk space. I don't have it. I have a hard disk crammed with such useless items as DOS, an editor, a C compiler, utilities, WordPerfect and fonts, 1-2-3, etc. You know, the software that people use to get their work done. I don't have games on the disk, I don't have 20Mb of GIFs - there isn't room for that, and if I really want it, well, I'll get it off a floppy. If I look at the array of software that I use, the average package runs to about 2Mb of hard disk space. I can live with that. I do live with that. But Windows 3.0 doesn't fit that mould. It is another example of the software bloat that we have all come to know. Frankly, I don't know whether I will install it - I question whether it is worth giving up 10Mb. I wonder whether others will feel the same way. Microsoft expects to sell a million copies of Windows 3.0 within a year. I expect they will. I will be surprised if there are a million users in a year, though, because of the resource requirements. I bought 3.0 and I expect that I'll keep it. But I doubt I'll be using it. By the magazines, 10Mb is pretty cheap these days. But disks don't come in 10Mb chunks any more and space inside a PC is pretty limited (space inside my T5100 is especially limited ;-). I wonder how many will use a package with an apparent cost of $50 (upgrade price) when they discover they need to lay out another $300-$500 for a hard disk to keep it on. Of course, all of you with 330Mb drives have nothing to worry about. Norbert
wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (06/07/90)
In article <3528@rex.cs.tulane.edu> doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) writes: >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). In my opion, MS Windows is a lot more of a real GUI then X-Windows. By the way Motif for X-windows was developed by MicroSoft and HP for the OSF! It was based on IBM's Systems Application Architechture and used Presentation Manager and Windows as a basis for its look. Basically all they added to the 'look and feel' aspect of it was the 3-D chiseled(sp?) effect. (I think barrowed from NeXT). Now even Windows and OS/2 have the same effect. I use Motif(X-windows) alot here at school, and all in all I think Windows is alot more refined. This appears to be especially true for Win 3.0 from everything that I have read and seen. (I'm still waiting for my update!). As for a real OS, well I'm sure I will start a heated war, but I think (based on the information in the latest MicroSoft Systems Journal and last two PC Magazines) that OS/2 version 2.0 will be more of a REAL OS then UNIX in terms of programming API power and file system and the average Joe American Computer User! One last thing, MicroSoft quite a while back (I think 1988, but not sure) even promised that eventually Windows Aps. will run right along side PM OS/2 Aps. someday. Not even in a "compatibility (penilty) box", but rather MS Windows' windows along side (on top of and under) PM windows. Last but not least, I along with a few editors, think that Windows 3.0 is the start of a new generation of software and rather than being a an alternative to OS/2, it is a part of the migration path to it! As far as cost, if you actually saw, and worked with the Windows Software Development Kit, you would completely understand the cost! (I DO!) Windows does a hell of lot more than X-Windows in terms of what it has to do. X-Windows , to very over simplify, is nothing more than a Networkable device independent windows managerand API and GUI. Windows is that minus Network stuff, but it is also a memory manager, and device independent Printer manager, communications manager, Dynamic Data Exchange manager, etc. Basically it is an increadable operating system enhancer! Also Once TrueType comes out, Windows (and OS/2) will be able to do basically everything PostScript and DisplayPostScript can do and can do it on ANY printer and Any screen! Remember you are getting all of this for a mere $150 (retail)! Some programs like memory managers, other GUI's, postscript interpreters, print spoolers, cost as much or more than windows and do less than 10% of what windows is doing! As far as the Software Development Kit is concerned, it should be more expensive than windows itself! You get about $100 dollars worth of manuals alone! On top of that you get a library and a linker(windows requires a special linker to make the code and static segments load on demand-hence virtual), that is a lot more complex than the ones that come with the compiler! In good UNIXs you are just paying for it up front when you buy the UNIX so you don't see the price in the GUI. [ie SCO UNIX]. I know X Windows itself is free and in the public domain, but it has to do a lot less of what MS Windows has to do (due to UNIX being alot more powerful than DOS), and you paid for the same amount of usability from the operating system rather than from the GUI. I'm sure this post will cause a flame war with alot of people-THIS IS NOT THE INTENT. X-WINDOWS, MOTIF, and UNIX are WONDERFUL also, but I think MS-Windows, and OS/2 are getting almost as good (better???). Also remember that the above comments contain alot of opinions, and that everybody is going to find the system that works the best for them, and that is not going to be the same for everybody. My $0.02 worth...maybe less.... Dean Wallwey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the above comments are my own opinions. I'm not affiliated with any of the companies or products mentioned above.
jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (06/07/90)
>The cost of the Development kits also do not have a large impact on >the cost of the software ... This is only true for BIG software packages. What the lack of a cheap Windows development kit has done is eliminate cheap Windows software, shareware, freeware, hobbyists hacking around with Windows, etc. This, I think, has slowed down Windows's penetration into the market. Jim
wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (06/07/90)
In article <210@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> nfs@cs.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) writes: >....<stuff deleted> >off - C:\WINDOWS ate 7.5Mb of my hard disk. If I want to swap, I need >(probably) another 2-3Mb of disk space. >....<stuff deleted> >Norbert If you don't use all of MS Windows' programs (terminal, write, solitare,...,etc, delete the ones you don't want. This should save quit a bit of room! Another possibility where all that room is going is into fonts (although I doubt it-). You might be able to de-install these and delete them. -Dean Wallwey
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/07/90)
In article <1990Jun6.153908.14746@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >In article <4ad6ea11.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >> >>From: doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) >> >>>> 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? >>> >>>I couldn't agree more. MS wants an absurd amount of money for the >>>libraries. >> >> Is this the reason why products written for Windows seem to >> be so expensive? >> >No. > >It could be that the sellers just think "Oh Oh Windows adds so much value >to my product I'll charge more". > >Or it could be that Windows programs are more expensive to develop. >I have written some. They are indeed more expensive. > >First you have to learn how Windows works. Its not straightforward. >Even for people who have programmed the Mac. I takes months. > >Second, you have to program for Windows in **UNHOSTED** C. That is, >the Windows envrionment is and unhosted C environment. A large fraction >of standard C language libray functions DON'T WORK: scanf, printf, >any form of stdio, puts, putc, malloc, free, the list goes on and on. > >And the ways you have to do the equivalent in Windows are messy. You >(if you follow the rules) HAVE to use mixed model programming >(unless you program is small enough to be medium model). The pointers >you get from Windows equivalent of malloc may BECOME INVALID without >your doing anything. It's more complicated than a simple change of >char * to char **. > >Windows graphics calls are fairly simple. But it takes a bit of work >to get them all just exactly in the right order. > >And so on. > For a graphics environment, Windows is not much different than writing for Sunview or X. You need to change your thinking for writing applications for just about ANY windowing environment. If you have ever programmed in Sunview, Windows seems easy. I have seen a fair amount of shareware Windows applications including games, terminal emulators, desktop enhancers, etc. I am currently working on a few of my own. I do it because I like programming, it is a hobby, not to make lots of money. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (06/08/90)
ckindel@cs.arizona.edu (Charles E. Kindel, Jr. [Tigger]) posts... >I have been developing Windows apps for about 1.5 years now. I love it. The >API is rich and powerful and well designed. Inter application communication >(DDE), multi-tasking, true GUI, and support for DOS apps are a few reasons I >like it. > > [ other rah-rah Windows comments ] > >All the big boys have finally announced commitment to Windows. Lotus, Word >Perfect, Ashton Tate, ect... Yes, but I don't think you addressed my question: I observed that apps written to run under Windows seem to be very expensive. I even cited an example of one app where the Windows version of the exact same version number was hundred$ more than the non-Windows version. I want to know why this is. I'm not familiar with the Mac end of the business but for comparison I looked at some back issues of MacWeek and MacWorld. I did not get the impression that Mac software is outrageously expensive compared to PC software even though *all* of it has to conform to their interface. Is it harder to write for Windows than the Mac? So you still didn't answer my question. Right now there's lots of useful and interesting software I can buy for the PC in, say, the $50 - $150 price range. Drawing packages, compilers, DTP packages, comms packages, etc. Under Windows, for the same software, what will I expect to pay, and why? ---Peter
pajerek@usenet@kadsma (Don Pajerek) (06/08/90)
In article <4ae0dff2.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > Yes, but I don't think you addressed my question: > > I observed that apps written to run under Windows seem to be > very expensive. > > I want to know why this is. > > ---Peter In ascending order of difficulty (IMHO, of course): Macintosh Windows OS/2 PM The Mac is easiest because it has only a single event queue to worry about. Both Windows and PM have message queues for each object. There is a bit of a tradeoff between Windows and PM in that memory management under PM is easier, but PM also introduces multi-threaded programming, which, while useful and valuable, also has its pitfalls. You can do PM programming without threads, but who would want to? Don Pajerek
oecheruo@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chima Oke Echeruo) (06/09/90)
Where is Window Basic from Microsoft?????? A windows QuickBasic (insulated from API calls) that was cheap and simple would do a lot for microsoft in getting new windows converts. Microsoft, are you there? How about a windows QuickBasic 5.0 < $150 ???????? Don't forget AMIGA,MAC,ATARI ST and GEM all have one! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Chima Oke Echeruo ----- oecheruo@silver.ucs.indiana.edu ++++++ oecheruo@amber.ucs.indiana.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) (06/09/90)
In article <4ae0dff2.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > > I observed that apps written to run under Windows seem to be > very expensive. I even cited an example of one app where the > Windows version of the exact same version number was hundred$ > more than the non-Windows version. > > I want to know why this is. > > I'm not familiar with the Mac end of the business but for comparison > I looked at some back issues of MacWeek and MacWorld. I did not get > the impression that Mac software is outrageously expensive compared > to PC software even though *all* of it has to conform to their > interface. Is it harder to write for Windows than the Mac? > > So you still didn't answer my question. Right now there's lots > of useful and interesting software I can buy for the PC in, say, > the $50 - $150 price range. Drawing packages, compilers, DTP > packages, comms packages, etc. Under Windows, for the same > software, what will I expect to pay, and why? > > ---Peter Please give some more percise examples. Honestly, alot of Windows aps don't cost a lot more than comprible DOS counterparts. Desktop publishing for example---Pagemaker versus Ventura, Word for Windows vs Word and Word-Perfect. Excel vs Lotus 1-2-3 ver 3.0. Granted the windows versions cost some more, but alot of time, (in my opinion) they are 10 TIMES BETTER! Also remember now that MS Windows 3.0 now comes with some really usable small aps itself. In particular the terminal program, PaintBrush program, and Notepad. (For small jobs, less than 32K, I actually use Notepad for my main editor!). Most of the examples that I sighted above are the 'Profesional' level of programs. Granted there are alot of cheaper(even shareware) programs that do what the big expensive Windows programs do, but they are no where near the quality of the windows aps(IN MY OPINION). Also one of the reasons that windows aps tend to be more expensive, is that people who run Windows tend to be (I hate the term) 'Power Users'. They have 1 Meg or more running on a 286 or better with EGA or better. Compare this with all those 8088 CGA and Herc. machines out there. The markets are just plain different, and Windows ap. writers know that Windows users are just plain willing to spend more. One last note: Everybody is complaining about the lack of shareware for Windows. Check out Simtel20.arpa and some of the other anonymous ftp sites that carry Windows software. Alot of it is not that bad, but it is sometimes hard to find because Windows users are still a very small minority. I hope this changes with Windows 3.0! My $0.02 worth...Maybe Less.... Dean Wallwey ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above message is my own opinion! I am not affiliated with any of the products or companies mentioned above!
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (06/09/90)
In article <210@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> nfs@cs.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) writes: >When my copy of Windows 3.0 arrived from Microsoft (in 3 days rather >than the quoted four weeks!), a quick glance at the manual revealed a >requirement for 6-8Mb of hard disk space. I freed up some space, >installed the package, and discovered the disk estimates weren't far >off - C:\WINDOWS ate 7.5Mb of my hard disk. If I want to swap, I need >(probably) another 2-3Mb of disk space. In InfoWorld's recent Windows supplement (page S10) they write: Windows requires a large amount of hard disk space - 4-1/2 megabytes of free disk pace to install it and its included utilities, not counting other applications. By eliminating some features, such as background art, you can pare Windows down to under 2 megabytes. We've got a real discrepancy here. Can anyone shed light on how much space is occupied by the various Windows components?
John.Guest@f220.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Guest) (06/11/90)
You might try LZEXE as an "execute from compressed" method of saving disk space. It works on .exe, .bat (and .com if converted to .exe) to compress to about zip level. Also a PCMag utility called (I think) pcmanage will do a similar thing for some data, etc files. Neither of these work on ALL files, but they are fairly efficient at saving space. On a sample 20Meg disk, I went from 15M to about 9Meg without losing any functionality or programs. Good luck. -- John Guest via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!220!John.Guest INET: John.Guest@f220.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) (06/12/90)
In article <60@raysnec.UUCP>, shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes... >In article <210@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> nfs@cs.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) writes: >>requirement for 6-8Mb of hard disk space. I freed up some space, >>installed the package, and discovered the disk estimates weren't far >>off - C:\WINDOWS ate 7.5Mb of my hard disk. If I want to swap, I need >>(probably) another 2-3Mb of disk space. > >In InfoWorld's recent Windows supplement (page S10) they write: > > Windows requires a large amount of hard disk space - 4-1/2 > megabytes of free disk pace to install it and its included > utilities, not counting other applications. By eliminating When I tried to install Windows the first time, I got an error message to the effect that Windows requires at least 6.5 Mb of free disk space and that I needed to free the disk to provide this space before the installation could be continued. After that it returned to DOS prompt. After the installation it took 4.6 Mb on a 286 machine, and added a swapfile of 2.5 Mb on a 386. --------- Leo Simon simon@pwrvax.enet.dec.com Who is not liberal when young, does not have a heart. Who is not conservative when old, does not have a brain.
joel@peora.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) (06/12/90)
In article <60@raysnec.UUCP>, shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes: > In article <210@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> nfs@cs.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) writes: > >off - C:\WINDOWS ate 7.5Mb of my hard disk. If I want to swap, I need > >(probably) another 2-3Mb of disk space. > > In InfoWorld's recent Windows supplement (page S10) they write: > > Windows requires a large amount of hard disk space - 4-1/2 > megabytes of free disk pace to install it and its included > utilities, not counting other applications. By eliminating > some features, such as background art, you can pare Windows > down to under 2 megabytes. > > We've got a real discrepancy here. Can anyone shed light on how much > space is occupied by the various Windows components? My installation is pretty close to what Infoworld got. I suspect your mileage may vary a lot depending on what options you specify. Maybe the guy was using several different printer drivers or something. Also I have a 286 machine. The 386 installation may take up more space. As far as cutting down the size to 2 megs, I think you could do it. You could get down to 3 megs easy by getting rid of all the text files, BMP files and all the help files. To get down to 2 megs it looks to me like you would have to cut out all the accessories, like write and pbrush. I suspect that some of the other files aren't needed either, but until I know what they do, I'm not inclined to experiment. I don't consider 4.5 megs excessive for what it is doing, but I'll be glad when I get upgrades to my applications, so I can delete the old Windows software off my disk. -- Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (06/13/90)
From: wallwey@snoopy.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) >> >> I observed that apps written to run under Windows seem to be >> very expensive. I even cited an example of one app where the >> Windows version of the exact same version number was hundred$ >> more than the non-Windows version. >> >> I want to know why this is. > >Please give some more percise examples. Gladly. > Honestly, alot of Windows aps >don't cost a lot more than comprible DOS counterparts. Desktop >publishing for example---Pagemaker versus Ventura, Right, and an Infiniti doesn't cost a lot more than a comparable BMW! So what? I mentioned in an earlier posting that there are many popular DTP packages under $200: Publish-It!, PFS First Publisher, Express Publisher, etc.. Ditto with comms packages (Procomm, f'rinstance) or paint packages (PC Paintbrush IV+ by Zsoft -- the originator of the popular .pcx file format and the Paintbrush app that comes with Windows 3.0 is a badly hobbled version of this product ). How about compilers? Borland's Turbo C and Microsoft's QuickC, for examples. The whole world doesn't drive Mercedes and Infinitis no matter HOW good those cars are. A lot us us drive Escorts and Rabbits. And a lot of us buy software in the $50-150 price range. It's not because we don't know Ventura is better than First Publisher, but maybe we don't need to publish a book, maybe we just need to turn out a few advertising flyers for the coffeehouse in the church basement. > Word for Windows vs Word and Word-Perfect. Excel vs Lotus 1-2-3 > ver 3.0. Granted the windows versions cost some more, but > alot of time, (in my opinion) they are 10 TIMES BETTER! And BMW makes better cars than Ford, but which do you think will sell more? Not everybody can afford the better product or needs what's better about it. > Also remember now that MS Windows 3.0 now comes with some really > usable small aps itself. In particular the terminal program, > PaintBrush program, I don't find them all that usable. I need scanner support and support for 256 colors, which I get with PC Paintbrush IV+. I need scripting which I get with Procomm. But I can't run either of the latter under Windows 3.0 (according to MS --I haven't tried myself). >Also one of the reasons that windows aps tend to be more expensive, is >that people who run Windows tend to be (I hate the term) 'Power Users'. >They have 1 Meg or more running on a 286 or better with EGA or better. I got news for you: Hardware has gotten a lot cheaper lately. I have a 386SX with 4 meg of RAM, VGA and a 42 meg H.D. and it cost me a little over $2000. That's not a "power user" price range. Apple has demonstrated that it is possible to create a GUI environment which also supports multiple tasks for which software can be developed cheaply and relatively easily. If Windows is hard to program then that's because MS designed it that way. Windows' popularity will be very limited as long as the only people who use it are those who can afford to buy the BMW and Mercedes Benz of software products. ---Peter
poffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/13/90)
In article <12389@shlump.nac.dec.com> simon@hpspwr.enet.dec.com (Curiosier and curiosier...) writes: > >In article <60@raysnec.UUCP>, shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes... >>In article <210@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> nfs@cs.Princeton.EDU (Norbert Schlenker) writes: > >>>requirement for 6-8Mb of hard disk space. I freed up some space, >>>installed the package, and discovered the disk estimates weren't far >>>off - C:\WINDOWS ate 7.5Mb of my hard disk. If I want to swap, I need >>>(probably) another 2-3Mb of disk space. >> >>In InfoWorld's recent Windows supplement (page S10) they write: >> >> Windows requires a large amount of hard disk space - 4-1/2 >> megabytes of free disk pace to install it and its included >> utilities, not counting other applications. By eliminating > >When I tried to install Windows the first time, I got an error message >to the effect that Windows requires at least 6.5 Mb of free disk space >and that I needed to free the disk to provide this space before the >installation could be continued. After that it returned to DOS prompt. >After the installation it took 4.6 Mb on a 286 machine, and added a >swapfile of 2.5 Mb on a 386. > Where the installation is messed up is that if you have an existing Windows 3.0 directory, it doesn't recognize this and overwrite, it just complains that you don't have enough space. It seems that if it is smart enoguh to figure out everything about your system, that it should be able to install on top of itself without counting that disk space as used. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
jmann@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (06/13/90)
When I installed Windows 3.0 on my machine, it took about 4-4.5 M (as per Info World), not 7+ (as per a previous poster). Jim
michaelk@copper.WR.TEK.COM (Michael D. Kersenbrock) (06/13/90)
Where the installation is messed up is that if you have an existing Windows 3.0 directory, it doesn't recognize this and overwrite, it just complains that you don't have enough space. It seems that if it is smart enoguh to figure out everything about your system, that it should be able to install on top of itself without counting that disk space as used. . . . . . . I'm glad that it DIDN'T do that. I'm fearful of installation programs that clobber any of my existing files. If I want my existing files to be clobbered, I'll delete them myself, or do something else that is appropriate. -- Mike Kersenbrock Tektronix Logic Analyzers Division michaelk@copper.WR.TEK.COM Aloha, Oregon