🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GERHARD.GRUBER.95Jun20112636@atusel16.aut.alcatel.at>,
Gerhard Gruber <Gerhard.Gruber@aut.alcatel.at> wrote:

| As long as Microsoft Products will be sold there is no need to write
| either good, fast, small, stable software.
| 
| People don't complaining to Microsoft about the memory requierements,
| they are byuing the "needed" Memory complaining about the hardware
| prices. As long as this happens nothing will change, why should it?
| 

People don't by computers and then look for applications to run, they
decide on the application and then get a system to support it. MS
applications sell well because they are better than the competition, and
the failure of "MONEY" in the marketplace shows that people will buy the
best product.

As a business person, I care about features and ease of use. If I have
to buy memory or a faster CPU, I do it once. If I or an employee spend
more time using the application which was smaller, faster, cheaper, it
costs me money forever. Unless an application is really bloated (like
more than 32M RAM or 100MB disk, or can't run on 486-80) the labor
savings swamp the hardware cost.

As an individual I have to look hard at cost, but the cheap stuff is
often hard to use, unstable, etc. It doesn't save me time. Free stuff
with source is usually much better, because people donate fixes back to
the author.

So far the only two applications which I have to run in Windows and
using bloated commercial software are word processing and scanning. As
long as there are no productive alternatives I will keep a Windows
machine and use it when I must.
-- 
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.
	Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) consultant/director
TMR does UNIX and other systems stuff, some real time, network and
system admin, security, C and other good stuff.