>>I hope that my own post was not perceived in this light by you or Falcor22.
>PMFJI But you non-stop Windows & DOS bashing is percieved by me AS
>The purpose of this group is to HELP users. If a user HAS made an
>informed choice to follow a path, then HELP if you can.
I don't know quite how I stepped into this and I won't step far.
>>Basically, the point that I was trying to make is, "it's really time to
>>switch." Computers have become so inexpensive and so powerful now that DOS
>>by-itself simply does not have the capabilities that can harness it. It was
>>never designed to be.
>Very few EW drivers (if any) are needed to use PDOXDOS with
>printers... so why worry about that unless you are graphig from PDOX .
The situation as I see it is simply this: Windows 3.1 (and for that matter,
Windows-95) is "a really good add-in to DOS," that someone has already done
and which you can buy anywhere. It does, in a consistent way, what every
single program needs: printer-independent and video-independent I/O, and
memory management. It makes overlays and DPMI and all that <!> a thing of the
past -- in a way that is consistent for all. All for less than $100 retail.
Furthermore, it runs DOS sessions just fine in a window.
The reality is that every single software designer on the planet has moved to
that. And they have now moved beyond that to 32-bit operating systems with
built in networking -- and more. With this arrangement, one or two companies
assume the responsibility of writing and debugging services that everyone else
can rely upon being-there. The enormous advances in computer hardware, and
the enormous drops in the price thereof, really *have* changed the equation
against "holding out with pure DOS."
What I am saying is basically that it's an economic argument. The goal of the
company is, as always, to spend money as wisely as they can. The goal of the
companies who -produce- the software is exactly the same.
Quote:>>However, consider all of your DOS-client work to be throwaway. You are
>>ultimately going to throw away the DOS program you just paid good money to
>>write. The replacement program, written for Windows using the tools now
>>available (but not even contemplated or contemplatable during the DOS days),
>>will cost two-thirds less and do three times as much. I do not believe that I
>>am exaggerating this.
>All work is throw away. Some is thrown awy sooner than later <g>.
>The choice is the CLIENTS, Not the developers in this respect.
>It is our obligatio to inform the CLIENT f any pitfalls of following
>the path requested, then do it s agreed.
No, I mean *really* throwaway, Steve. I mean, work that is going to be viewed
as 100% sunk-cost, unsalvageable, within a calendar year. Work that is going
to have to be re-done completely, and that is going to cost more than three
times than the replacement software will cost, and that will produce an end
product that is decidedly worse to the end-users than its replacement.
Right now, when a client comes to us and says "we have Paradox for DOS and we
want ..." What we tell them is, "I'm sorry, if you're willing to do it in
Paradox for Windows then we'll bid." It is simply not cost-effective for us
to take on the work. I'm serious. I know that our bid is going to have to be
several times larger than the equivalent bid in PxWin and I know that this
approach is not in the customer's best interests. I know that the bid could
turn into a millstone around our necks. At this point in time and technology
it is simply not cost-effective to do new work in that environment. I could
easily spend $1,500 in unrecoverable cost building the same foundation that I
can buy for $200 at Best Buy. I can literally re-write the whole application
in Paradox for Windows for less money -- much less -- than I can attempt the
same work in DOS.
Consider this: all of software is a construction. It includes the operating
system, then the vendor-ware, then the custom-ware. The higher up you go, the
more expensive the end result becomes. But all the user cares about IS the
end result. The more vendor-ware you can use, the more sophisticated it can
be, the less the project ultimately costs. The economics work this way
because vendors can disperse the cost across tens of thousands of units. You
have to encapsulate the cost (real or funny) of the custom-ware into just one
The Windows layer of software, which is "canned" and universal, provides very
significant added functionality on top of DOS that otherwise has to be
duplicated. There is simply no economic justification left now for leaving it
Enough said. I don't mean to preach on a soapbox. I didn't jump in to preach.