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
wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (06/07/90)
I have another idea. I know Actor makes Windows development "easier," so why not a "quick" version of this? Or how about lowering the price of Actor? Why not a language and development package that runs under windows? Oh, say "Quick C for Windows"? I do know what is involved in writing apps. I am a Deskmate developer in the making, but I got that free because of where I work. -bryon lape-
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
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
akm@cacofonix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) (06/08/90)
****Note: I am *NOT* trying to start a Mac vs PC/Windows debate*** For my research, I am trying to develop some software simultaneously under windows and on the Mac. The major difference I see is that (and someone mentioned this before in this thread) is that the interface is integrated into the development tools on the Mac. By this I mean that application development software that you buy for the Mac run within the Mac environment as well as creates executables for the environment. Take, for example Think C or Think Pascal. (Not endorsing them, just using them as exemplars.) They run under the Mac OS, and you are always in the environment you are developing for. Under Windows, the major development tool is MSC 5.xx+ together with the SDK. To compile for Windows, I need to drop down to DOS (and its a long way down...). I find that a really unsatisfactory state of affairs. So, I'm hoping that people will start writing compilers that will run under windows, and will primarily (only?) produce code for windows. If they are integrated, like Think Pascal and the Turbo C/Pascal etc stuff, that will be an added advantage. So, when I do a malloc, it is the sort of malloc that Windows understands, and I don't have to concern myself with the many ways that I can use C routines to mess Windows up. That would probably mean a compiler that can generate routines only for Windows, but that is fine. Meanwhile, I will check out Actor, which is the only thing that I currently know of that fits the bill. Wonder if Symantic and company are thinking of putting out development tools for windows? Someone sent me email saying that DIgitalk was putting out a Smalltalk V for windows. Kartik ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anant Kartik Mithal akm@cs.uoregon.edu Department of Computer Science akm@oregon.BITNET University of Oregon
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (06/12/90)
In article <1990Jun7.123548.5105@cs.utk.edu> wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) writes: > I have another idea. I know Actor makes Windows development >"easier," so why not a "quick" version of this? Or how about lowering >the price of Actor? Why not a language and development package that >runs under windows? Oh, say "Quick C for Windows"? There's no reason to lower the price of Actor. We already offer academic prices and, if you look at other Windows development tools, we're really very reasonably priced. Heck, we do a LOT more than the other guys do for the same price and we're still the only tool that truly allows you to create a robust Windows application without buying the SDK or a C compiler. As for a quick version, I'd really like to hear some ideas on how we could do this. Quick C vs C 5.1 or 6.0 can be seen in optimization. It would require backward engineering to make a non-optimized Actor and would be sorta silly. Limit the class library? What could we limit. If we remove the Windows classes then it defeats the purpose. Limit the amount of memory available? I don't think people would go for this. I've run over it in my head and really can not think of how we could create a "quick" version of Actor. If anyone has other ideas please tell me them. If I can create a limited Actor that we could distribute at a lower price I'd really like to do it. Patrick Deupree The Whitewater Group -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us
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
yon@world.std.com (David A Yon) (06/14/90)
Charles Kindel writes: >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. Yes, but no-one ever said that developing for a GUI had to be _hard_ either. Contrast the relative elegance of a GUI system like Open Dialogue or the C_talk/Views to programming directly in the X-Toolkit or with the Windows SDK. The difference is comparable to the productivity differences in programming in assembler as opposed to a higher-level language. Quite honestly, the architecture of the Windows API is such a disaster that I would be ashamed to be charging money for it. Not only did they write an API that is filled with such needless complexity that it takes months to become productive, but then they turn around and make developers pay through the nose. Friends, this is just *not* the way to encourage a large software base. IMHO, they should be charging media and printing costs plus a nominal distribution fee. That's all. THEN maybe we'll see some software for Windows... David Yon Software Consultant
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (06/14/90)
In article <3528@rex.cs.tulane.edu> doerschu@rex.cs.tulane.edu (David Doerschuk) writes: >In article <9814@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: >>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. I think that this is a valid point for any software developer of any size. Those software libraries were no afternoon picnic and Microsoft deserves to be paid for the investment it spent developing them. I would much rather pay $100 for the SDK, but lets be reasonable. I think the main reason there is not AS MUCH (for there is some) PD and Shareware stuff out there is because of the shear complexity of development. Besides, for any of those students and Academics that want to develop for Windows, there is an less costly alternative; Actor may be purchased at an Educational discount of only $99. And Actor takes some of the complexity out of it to boot. But it is still a large task. Signature under construction ______ / | Richard Oppenheimer | \/ Computer Science Center | Ri University of Maryland __|__ __ College Park, Maryland ,USA | | |______|| \ oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (office) | | OO OO--0-| richard@wam.umd.edu (home) ****************************************************************** My employer cares not what I think and knows not what I say. The opinons expressed herein are my own and are not endorsed by the Computer Science Center. ******************************************************************