Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) (06/06/89)
Greg Csullog writes:
"Larry Rymal feels that ST software is not as polished as packages on other
machines. In some cases I have to agree. When he says that ST software costs
more I begin to see red!"
I regretted that statement the second I typed it, but I was trying
to establish a point, but wasn't too good at it. Note that I was not
saying all software as was quoted above.
My point is the roughness of the software and I don't think that
because of 'cheapness' (?) of the ST that we have to have rough soft-
ware. Is DungeonMaster rough? Oids? Joust?
That the ST *can* have polished software is my point. Look at
the Dr. T's MIDI programs. Look at Tim Purves' BBS program series.
The price issue is one I wish that I didn't raise.
I did that because I wish that I didn't have to emulate to get
what I want, especially from a writer's point of view. In my case,
I want to see EXACTLY what I'm going to get on the printer. We
don't have an affordable package yet that is capable of doing that.
Note that I said that TimeWorks DeskTop Publisher comes close but it
is not a word processor.
FullWrite (MAC) can be had for $108.00 if one is an educator or
full time post-secondary student. It is a fast word processor with
desktop publishing tools. Calamus (sp?) costs much more, is limited
on its fonts, is not intuitive (although with the pirates, I wouldn't
want it to be too intuitive), and is not easy to use.
I still feel that we can and deserve better software. Calamus is
the only package that I was using with my price argument and really
regret that I put that to be taken as all software. But I will argue
that most of our commercial grade software has been buggy and we
don't deserve such.
Larry Rymal <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>stowe@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Fox in Sox) (06/08/89)
In article <890606.09372998.007881@SFA.CP6> Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) writes: > FullWrite (MAC) can be had for $108.00 if one is an educator or >full time post-secondary student. It is a fast word processor with >desktop publishing tools. Calamus (sp?) costs much more, is limited >on its fonts, is not intuitive (although with the pirates, I wouldn't >want it to be too intuitive), and is not easy to use. Comparing FullWrite with Calamus is on the same level as comparing apples and ketchup. They're both software packages, but the similarity ends there. Calamus is not designed to be a word processor in any way, shape or form. However, according to Nathan Potechin at ISD, there will be an add-on word processing module for Calamus. As for ease of use, Calamus is not intuitive, I agree, but is not at all difficult once one becomes accostomed to the icon selections. Additionally, you can not use an educational discount for one package, but not for the other. If you want a comparison, use suggested retail. FullWrite Professional lists at $395. Shall we compare it to another word processor with some desktop publishing capabilities, like, say.... WordUp? WordUp lists at $79.95. Yes, WordUp is slower (although better with G+Plus than GDOS), but for $320, I think I can stand a little slowdown. If you want a valid comparison to Calamus, choose a package that is intended to perform the same function. stowe@silver.indiana.bacs.edu At night the Ice Weasels come.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (06/10/89)
In article <890606.09372998.007881@SFA.CP6> Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) writes: [ much good stuff deleted ] > I still feel that we can and deserve better software. Calamus is >the only package that I was using with my price argument and really >regret that I put that to be taken as all software. But I will argue >that most of our commercial grade software has been buggy and we >don't deserve such. > >Larry Rymal <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET> Perhaps we don't "deserve" it but if you want "polished" software, somebody's got to finance it. If it's going to cost a certain amount of money to develop a product and bring it to market, then you have to sell enough units to pay for that amount and the ongoing overhead and cost-of-goods to produce those units. Companies can afford to spend more on the devlopment and marketing of PC and Mac software becuase they know they can sell more units and probably at a higher sale price each, as compared to the ST. Until the total number of ST's goes up and more software buyers exist, ST users that want better software are just going to have to either develop it themselves or help pay for the development. As it is now, ST users want the cheapest software. A program for the ST that is very similar to a PC program, often sells for a lot less money. It costs about the same to produce a PC or ST product. No company wants to fund a project into the red so you won't see the same amount of money put into an ST product as a successfull company will spend on a PC or Mac product. And the companies that do spend that much money on an ST product simply won't be there long enough to provide on-going support, unless they have revenues from some other source to keep them going. It's the American way. The almighty dollar. When there are enough buyers who will pay enough money to justify the development costs, you will see the kinds of polished programs you want. It's kind of a Catch-22. You can't get the programs until you get the volume but you can't get the volume until you get the programs. Apple solved it for the Mac - but it wasn't cheap. Can Atari do it? I guess we'll all see. -- David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.UUCP) | "Adios amigos. And, as they say when Beckemeyer Development Tools | the boys are scratching the bad ones, 478 Santa Clara Ave. Oakland, CA 94610 | 'Stay a long time, Cowboy!'" UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | - Jo Mora