Subj : Re: XP Home -> XP Pro
To   : TOM WALKER
From : JAY EMRIE
Date : Tue Nov 16 2004 07:21 pm

TW> While a lot of New Versions are similar they mostly are different
TW>projects. And the Windows Operating is a good example. While each
TW>generation, win3.X, Win95, Win98, WinXP are similar there was less code
TW>brought forward then we think.

TW>-> TW>And I will not even address the "After Sale" services we Demand from 
the
TW>-> TW>Software side of the Computer World.

TW>-> It's been my experience that many require a payment for such.

TW> And those that do were FORCED to do so becasue of the rising cost of
TW>providing NO Cont smal lpatches. Or i nthe case of the AntiVirus the
TW>rappid increase of Virus writers requires an ever increasing Manpower
TW>expenditure in the Battle. That is VERY costly in Manhours for the
TW>Programers.

Had they written the OS decently is the first place there would not
havebeen so much need for the man hours needed to fix what they broke in
the first place.


TW>But the topick of discussion is wether the cost of the Windows Operating
TW>system is a "Rip Off" or Corporate greed. MS provides and endless stream
TW>of FREE upgrades to keep up with the misdeeds of others. 
TW>THERE is no such a thing as a FREE LUNCH". Soem one has to pay
TW>somewhere. Adn the easiest was it to tack on a Statistical extimate of
TW>the "Maintenance" cost ot the Origional Purchase. 
TW>FAR better then PAYING per incident for those patches IMHO.

I honestly believe the major programs, Windows, PhotoShop, etc. are
quite overpriced. However, it does seem to me that Adobe puts out a far
superior products (needing far fewer "patches" that any Windows product.

Jay
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

.