rpk@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Robert Krajewski) (08/24/90)
I'm disappointed at the quality of Windows shareware I've seen, especially compared to Mac. Now, I appreciate any that I find, but I've seen nothing that is truly cool like Stuffit or all those Macintosh inits. The most notable quality of Windows shareware is the fetishistic and non-standard use of accelerators for menu items. Exhibit A: GCP. Wouldn't it have been easier to have one File:Open dialog box (no accellerator, thank you), and some buttons inside to select the format ? The same with Save As. WinTris has the same problem; I realize a game can play with the rules more, but it probably would have been better if it used checkmarks on the menu items to display the state of the various items. Also, it's Exit, guys, not Quit ! Of course, for a Windows do-gooder, there are some obstacles right at the start. The Windows market will surely dwarf the Mac community within two years, but its community spirit doesn't compare, given the nature of what PCs are usually used for. Microsoft doesn't make it easy for the little guy; there aren't many fora for the transmission of Windows programming folklore. There's nothing like Think C or MPW; DOS sux as a programming environment. Robert P. Krajewski Internet: rpk@ai.mit.edu ; Lotus: robert_krajewski.lotus@crd.dnet.lotus.com
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (08/24/90)
In article <10297@life.ai.mit.edu> rpk@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Robert Krajewski) writes: >Of course, for a Windows do-gooder, there are some obstacles right at >the start. The Windows market will surely dwarf the Mac community >within two years, but its community spirit doesn't compare, given the >nature of what PCs are usually used for. Microsoft doesn't make it >easy for the little guy; there aren't many fora for the transmission >of Windows programming folklore. There's nothing like Think C or MPW; >DOS sux as a programming environment. Now, not being much of a mac person due to the fact that I could not stand being forced to use a Windowing environment, I may be wrong but aren't Think C and MPW produced by third party developers (meaning Apple did not create them)? See, you have to keep something in mind here. If Apple is going to make a $1400 or so sale, it's easy for them go give you a cheap development environment. I mean, after all, they make the hardware and the software. Microsoft is just selling software (Windows 3.0 at $150). It's not as easy for them to give cheap development software. Now, as far as third party development tools, just because there are no inexpensive development tools now does not mean there won't be some in the future. Maybe the people who produced Think C will make an IBM version (this is purely speculative). You just never know. The point is, it has traditionally been the job of a third party to create easy and/or cheap development tools for an environment created by someone else. (As a final note, you're right, Dos is a lousy programming environment. However, in my book, Windows makes it more interesting and gives it more potential.) -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
opperman@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Roger Opperman) (08/24/90)
In article <10297@life.ai.mit.edu> rpk@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Robert Krajewski) writes: >I'm disappointed at the quality of Windows shareware I've seen, especially >compared to Mac. Now, I appreciate any that I find, but I've seen [ misc. detailed descriptions omitted ] >of Windows programming folklore. There's nothing like Think C or MPW; >DOS sux as a programming environment. > >Robert P. Krajewski >Internet: rpk@ai.mit.edu ; Lotus: robert_krajewski.lotus@crd.dnet.lotus.com There are a few differences in the situation here. Mac shareware (and shareware developers) has been under development for 4-5 years now. Windows 3 has only been out for a couple of months. The prohibitive cost of the SDK probably has a lot to do with it also. This is similar to the situation when the Mac was released -- remember when you had to buy a Lisa to do Mac development?? In a couple of years, after the market has been given a chance to work, I suspect that Windows shareware will be just as good.
johnm@spudge.UUCP (John Munsch) (08/28/90)
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
a752@mindlink.UUCP (Bruce Dunn) (08/30/90)
From comments on the net it appears very difficult to get back any money
from registration of shareware. We need a different system. I propose that
Microsoft should directly support individual programmers by making cash awards
for the release of useful, bug-free, public domain Windows programs. Any
programmer would be entitled to submit a program to a jury (which could be from
non-Microsoft people) who would look at the functionality of the program and
whether it is a useful addition to the existing set of public domain programs.
The award made would be in proportion to the size and usefulness of the
program.
Where would the money come from? From Microsoft's advertising budget for
Windows. Why would Microsoft do this? What better advertising for an
operating environment than repeated announcements of yet another well written
public domain program.
For $100,000 per year, Microsoft could get a lot of public domain programs
released for Windows (increasing Windows sales) and programmers could get cash
award ranging from a $1000 for a minor utility to $20,000 to $50,000 for a
blockbuster application.
--
Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada a752@mindlink.UUCPnxh@mead.UUCP (Nobuya Higashiyama) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug24.154449.3650@evax.arl.utexas.edu> opperman@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Roger Opperman) writes: >In article <10297@life.ai.mit.edu> rpk@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Robert Krajewski) writes: >>I'm disappointed at the quality of Windows shareware I've seen, especially >>compared to Mac. Now, I appreciate any that I find, but I've seen >[ misc. detailed descriptions omitted ] >>of Windows programming folklore. There's nothing like Think C or MPW; >>DOS sux as a programming environment. > >There are a few differences in the situation here. Mac shareware (and >shareware developers) has been under development for 4-5 years now. >Windows 3 has only been out for a couple of months. The prohibitive >cost of the SDK probably has a lot to do with it also. Another problem has to do with the sheer complexity of Windows programming. There are 450+ functions to keep track of, memory management that takes quite a bit of time to get used to (we're talking about accessing blocks of memory by using handles), concepts that are unfamiliar to many programmers (message passing architecture, a little flavor of OOP, handles, working with window manager, etc.), and lot of other nasties. I think the industry saying is that it takes an average programmer about 6 months to become a seasoned Windows programmer (and this working full-time). Not many shareware authors can spend that much time just learning to use it. Higgy -- Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama | ____/| Data Integrity Systems | \ o.O| Vote for Bill in '92! Mead Data Central, Dayton, OH | =(_)= mead!nxh@uccba.uc.edu (or) ...!uccba!mead!nxh | U ACK! THPHTH!
ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) (09/06/90)
nxh@mead.UUCP (Nobuya Higashiyama) writes: >Another problem has to do with the sheer complexity of Windows programming. >There are 450+ functions to keep track of, memory management that takes quite >a bit of time to get used to (we're talking about accessing blocks of memory >by using handles), concepts that are unfamiliar to many programmers (message >passing architecture, a little flavor of OOP, handles, working with window >manager, etc.), and lot of other nasties. Have you ever looked into programming on the Mac ? I admit that I have only looked at it in passing, but there appeared to me to be thousands of functions to keep track of. The size of the manuals describing the graphics functions alone is HUMUNGOUS. It's no wonder Mac programmers are (supposedly) some of the highest paid programmers around. ant -- V ant "It's great to be young and insane" \o/ ant@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au - Dream Team -O- Anthony Murdoch Prentice Computer Centre /0\ Phone (07) 3774078 University of Qld