🚀 go-pugleaf

mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.201734.20379@PA.dec.com> reisert@sttng.mlo.dec.com
>(Jim Reisert) writes:
>>To me, given equal functionality and comparable prices [...]

>     You may just have hit the nail on the head there.  Usually, for
>equal functionality, shareware is cheaper.  (This is not always the case,
>but usually so.)  There is a good reason for that:  Shareware authors
>don't pay much for advertising and distribution.  People find out about
>their products by word of mouth and the software then gets around by
>being passed from BBS to FTP site to BBS at no cost to the original
>author.

Also, consider that "functionality" means different things to different
people. To the authors of most commercial software it seems to mean
"How many features can we cram in"

To me, it means how well can it do it's job, and how *small* is it.
Try installing DOS, a word processor, a database and a spreadsheet
on a 10 meg HD. Used to be that you could, and still have room left
over. 

Now figure it with DOS 5.0 (2398k), WP51 (6840k), Paradox or Dbase IV
(both 4+ meg), Lotus or Quattro (what 6 meg?). And figure the RAM they want.

After a lot of messing around, I've found that good old fashioned 
Microsoft Multiplan does just fine as a spreadsheet. (and will fit
on a 360k floppy). dBase 3 does well as a database and *almost* fits
on a floppy. I could go on...

I think that there'd be quite a market if the folks started to
put out programs that did *one* thing well. If you really *need* all
the features, go for the expensive package. Otherwise, get the cheap but
adequate one.

I own WordPerfect, for when I need something fancy. I *use* Norton 
Editor (the *old* version at that). 

And it'd be easier to sell *simple* package to "average" users.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)