RE: A "hidden" cost

From: Ian A. Ippolito <IanIppolito_at_planet-source-code.com>
Date: Wed 16 May 2001 15:55:12 -0500

    As a professional computer programmer, I usually am learning
more than I am submitting to this forum. However when I read the
statement that Microsoft's marketing compensates for their low
quality software, I had to comment.

MICHAEL MARTINEZ <Michael_at_xenite.org> WROTE:

>Matters only became worse as Windows 3.1 replaced 3.0,
>and the Win95 replaced 3.1, and then Win98,

 The operating systems Microsoft created were initially VERY bad.
However, with Windows 3.11 a semblance of stability was created.
When NT was released, stability took a major step forward. And
their last release...Windows 2000 (which most users won't really
see until Windows XP comes out, because it is mostly on servers)
is rock solid. I am speaking from experience--we run several
Windows 2000 servers and they are joys to behold. I haven't
rebooted or touched them since they were installed (over a year).

Regarding marketing:

>But the marketing behind the shoddy software is superb, second-to-none.

Again, I have to disagree. Microsoft's marketing is awful. As
evidence, look at the confusion over the new .NET strategy they
are promoting. If you ask 100 people what it is, you'll get 100
different answers, because the message from Redmond isn't consistent
and is all over the place.

    Just one programmer's humble opinion.

Sincerely,
Ian Ippolito
www.Planet-Source-Code.com
The net's largest developer database with
over a million lines of code!
P: (813) 908-9029
F: (813) 265-4621
E: IanIppolito_at_Planet-source-code.com



Received on Wed May 16 2001 - 15:55:12 CDT