Start menu coming back

And it seems that those with the newer touch screen devices and tablets like the Modern UI, as it makes sense. Those with desktop and non-touch devices don't like the Modern UI. That's why I feel that during the initial roll out of Windows 8, there should have been a choice for what UI you wanted. In several years, it really won't matter. Devices will have caught up to the software.

Businesses... For the most part I agree. When machines are replaced (3-5 year schedule), that's when the new OS is added. But, for our new machines we aren't going with Windows 8. So, for at least another 3-5 years, we are on Windows 7. At that time, we will have to look at support and such. We might be forced onto the new edition of Windows, like it or not. Right now, if the start menu was an option without a third party tool, we would be deploying Windows 8 (we are on touch screen devices, which are to a limited group).

If you buy a new device with Windows 8 and it's a tablet/hybrid - you're going to be a lot happier than if you upgrade a desktop to Windows 8. At least with a large sample of people, I'd wager that's what you'd find.

heatlesssun said:
I understand the point but one thing about the vast majority of Windows machines, even in business, they tend not to get upgraded much during their life of service. What came with the machine is what typically stays there.

Secondly, I suspect that there's a lot more touch hardware being sold these days. Last year in a place like Walmart, almost none of the laptops had touch. This year it's the opposite, almost all do, Wally World even sells Windows tablets now. Hardware was always a big part of it, and much like Windows 8, the hardware was on the incomplete side. I've said from day one that Windows 8 adoption would be slow and that we really wouldn't be able to judge it well until the right hardware at the right prices started coming online and that's just now started to happen.

The way I figured it is if good cheap tablets and hybrids and touch devices couldn't sell Windows 8, I don't think a Start Menu would offer much hope either.
Click to expand...
 
wonderfield said:
Windows Red appears to be a concept for Windows 7.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that because it looks more like 7 than 8? If so, I think that was the point. Bring the good things about Windows 8 into a keyboard and friendly mouse environment.
Infoworld said:
Introducing Windows Red: A serious plan to fix Windows 8
Click to expand...
 
The downward spiral of 8.1 tablets is not a good sign. The prices are so low its almost ridiculous, yet still sales are not what they should be. All this really means is lots of money being lost by MS, and more importantly, oem's like Dell, who really can't afford to be in the game much longer and will need to recoup losses.

As an oem, it takes a lot of R&D and marketing money to make a hybrid/tablet. Then they have razor thin margins to make any money at all.
 
MS has taken awhile to grasp the notion that the inclusion of a Start menu does not negate the Metro interface...they can live together...if anything this will get more people comfortable with using it rather then forcing it upon people...
 
MrCrispy said:
The downward spiral of 8.1 tablets is not a good sign. The prices are so low its almost ridiculous, yet still sales are not what they should be. All this really means is lots of money being lost by MS, and more importantly, oem's like Dell, who really can't afford to be in the game much longer and will need to recoup losses.
Click to expand...

How do you know what the sales are of say the Dell Venue 8 Pro? I've been following Windows tablets for a long time, and this device for seems to be hit a, the forums at TabletPCReview.com have blown up over it, heck even a number of people here have bought one or two on sale.

It was reported this past spring that Microsoft would be doing some low cost licensing deals with 8 on 11" screen and under tablet and hybrid devices and under. Exact terms of these deals are never publically disclosed but the number was going around like $20 to $30 dollars for Windows 8 and Office 2013 Home & Student per device. The way I see it, either Microsoft can make some money on a tablet sale or none at all. People looking for a mini-tablet can be persuaded to buy a Windows tablet more easily than they could laptop. Otherwise they are going to buy an Android tablet or iPad. And the hybrid nature of the device is a selling point. Run tablet apps and desktop apps, can't do that natively on an iPad or Android tablet. Just last night I loaded up Genymotion on my V8P. The lowest end Windows tablets, actually running Android in a VM and running Android apps, with half decent performance. The thing is just damned impressive.

And how much to you think something like the V8P actually costs to produce. Dell and other OEMs are probably getting some good deals from Intel. The V8P borrows a lot it looks from its Android brethren. The MSRP for the V8P 32 GB is $300 and there's no way it costs anything close to that to make even with Windows with the terms of the tablet licensing.

It's been said from the beginning that Windows tablets were going to have to get much cheaper to gain traction and for all of the issues that Microsoft has had with 8 it seems to have gotten serious about along with partners. So sure Microsoft takes a much smaller cut but again, either take a smaller cut or have no sale.

MrCrispy said:
As an oem, it takes a lot of R&D and marketing money to make a hybrid/tablet. Then they have razor thin margins to make any money at all.
Click to expand...

And Intel and Microsoft did a lot of this for them. Intel has almost as much interest in seeing Windows 8 tablets do well. Again, they'd love to sell you a more expensive Core i5 device like a Surface, but now they can either have low cost products out there and make some money or make nothing at all.
 
polonyc2 said:
MS has taken awhile to grasp the notion that the inclusion of a Start menu does not negate the Metro interface...they can live together...if anything this will get more people comfortable with using it rather then forcing it upon people...
Click to expand...

The problem is that having the old Start Menu AND the Start Screen becomes confusing especially on hybrid devices. There's already an issue with integrating the desktop and the modern UI. I have no problem with the functionality of the Start Menu as long as its achieved through configuration of the Start Screen.
 
heatlesssun said:
How do you know what the sales are of say the Dell Venue 8 Pro? I've been following Windows tablets for a long time, and this device for seems to be hit a, the forums at TabletPCReview.com have blown up over it, heck even a number of people here have bought one or two on sale.

It was reported this past spring that Microsoft would be doing some low cost licensing deals with 8 on 11" screen and under tablet and hybrid devices and under. Exact terms of these deals are never publically disclosed but the number was going around like $20 to $30 dollars for Windows 8 and Office 2013 Home & Student per device. The way I see it, either Microsoft can make some money on a tablet sale or none at all. People looking for a mini-tablet can be persuaded to buy a Windows tablet more easily than they could laptop. Otherwise they are going to buy an Android tablet or iPad. And the hybrid nature of the device is a selling point. Run tablet apps and desktop apps, can't do that natively on an iPad or Android tablet. Just last night I loaded up Genymotion on my V8P. The lowest end Windows tablets, actually running Android in a VM and running Android apps, with half decent performance. The thing is just damned impressive.

And how much to you think something like the V8P actually costs to produce. Dell and other OEMs are probably getting some good deals from Intel. The V8P borrows a lot it looks from its Android brethren. The MSRP for the V8P 32 GB is $300 and there's no way it costs anything close to that to make even with Windows with the terms of the tablet licensing.

It's been said from the beginning that Windows tablets were going to have to get much cheaper to gain traction and for all of the issues that Microsoft has had with 8 it seems to have gotten serious about along with partners. So sure Microsoft takes a much smaller cut but again, either take a smaller cut or have no sale.



And Intel and Microsoft did a lot of this for them. Intel has almost as much interest in seeing Windows 8 tablets do well. Again, they'd love to sell you a more expensive Core i5 device like a Surface, but now they can either have low cost products out there and make some money or make nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Do you have advanced experience in Product R&D? Have you ever designed a product from scratch? Have you designed a production facility for said product, distribution channel for said product, Warranty channels of said product, Product testing and government approval of said product and designed a Marketing and advertisement strategy for for said product?

If you have not had any experience in said Product Research, Development and Distribution I don't think your Anecdotal Hearsay is good enough for companies to blow Hundreds or Thousands or millions of dollars on products for your feel good feeling and simply overly Optimistic Microsoft outlook.

The only way MS will succeed is one simple way they need to make Windows Free on the Tablet. When you are dealing on razor thing margins a 2 dollar can be devastating not to even mention 30-80 dollar cut.

MS simply has to suffer the costs of market penetration they did it with the initial xbox.

Also Windows just simply has a terrible reputation. I don't think people are to thrilled at the fact that their tablet might end up with a virus.
 
Wrench00 said:
Do you have advanced experience in Product R&D? Have you ever designed a product from scratch? Have you designed a production facility for said product, distribution channel for said product, Warranty channels of said product, Product testing and government approval of said product and designed a Marketing and advertisement strategy for for said product?

If you have not had any experience in said Product Research, Development and Distribution I don't think your Anecdotal Hearsay is good enough for companies to blow Hundreds or Thousands or millions of dollars on products for your feel good feeling and simply overly Optimistic Microsoft outlook.

The only way MS will succeed is one simple way they need to make Windows Free on the Tablet. When you are dealing on razor thing margins a 2 dollar can be devastating not to even mention 30-80 dollar cut.

MS simply has to suffer the costs of market penetration they did it with the initial xbox.

Also Windows just simply has a terrible reputation. I don't think people are to thrilled at the fact that their tablet might end up with a virus.
Click to expand...

You don't have to have advanced hardware engineering knowledge to see the signs of a cookie cutter design. All of Dell's tablets, both Android and Windows use Atom SoCs. The external materials are similar and nice but not remarkable, the designs are similar, the 8 and 8 Pro I think use the same screen which is nice but unremarkable at 1280x800. There's nothing here that obviously indicates a big R&D in the construction of Dell's current tablets and historically Intel has helped its OEMs, and Intel has plenty of interest in seeing its Atom tablets succeed.

As for the licensing, free doesn't mean free necessarily. There is maintenance and support. Microsoft handles a lot of the updates and patches and distributes them. Microsoft does pay to license technologies in Windows, one reason why it dropped DVD support and Media Center in the box. In any case it's either some licensing fee or ad revenue or direct hardware sales, you can't do it for nothing.
 
Im not a big fan of windows 8

but i already try windows 8(not windows 8.1 yet) and feel great with it.

Just had problem with start menu. Will try 8.1 in a few days :)
 
heatlesssun said:
You don't have to have advanced hardware engineering knowledge to see the signs of a cookie cutter design. All of Dell's tablets, both Android and Windows use Atom SoCs. The external materials are similar and nice but not remarkable, the designs are similar, the 8 and 8 Pro I think use the same screen which is nice but unremarkable at 1280x800. There's nothing here that obviously indicates a big R&D in the construction of Dell's current tablets and historically Intel has helped its OEMs, and Intel has plenty of interest in seeing its Atom tablets succeed.

As for the licensing, free doesn't mean free necessarily. There is maintenance and support. Microsoft handles a lot of the updates and patches and distributes them. Microsoft does pay to license technologies in Windows, one reason why it dropped DVD support and Media Center in the box. In any case it's either some licensing fee or ad revenue or direct hardware sales, you can't do it for nothing.
Click to expand...

I work in the manufacturing industry and their is nothing easy or cheap about making products period. Even if you use cookie cutter designs. If it was that easy then you your self should create a tablet your self since you deem it easy and inexpensive. I await the Heatlesssun Windows 8.1 Tablet any day now. Again you lack any experience and any credibility to make you an expert in this field/sector. You said you work as a Sharepoint Dev for a Bank, Let me ask you if I requested a change or a feature on your Sharepoint system how long would it take for you to implement that change?


As for licensing sure you can do it for nothing. MS destroyed Netscape with a free product. It didn't cost anything. (In the traditional sense) Google is doing it with Free Android, Mozilla seems to be doing fine. Simply MS got beaten at their own game. MS dropped DVD support and built in ADS into their Windows Search sure as shit they can do it for free. Android handsets manufacturers pay fees to MS yet they still release Handsets.

The more you post silly stuff the bigger the hypocrite you are. Most times you just present double standards and you just sound like you know absolutely nothing.
 
Wrench00 said:
I work in the manufacturing industry and their is nothing easy or cheap about making products period. Even if you use cookie cutter designs. If it was that easy then you your self should create a tablet your self since you deem it easy and inexpensive.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about this being easy. Certainly Intel created reference designs for their OEM partners so they didn't have to design these thing from scratch, that's a pretty common practice. Then OEMs tweak the design to meet their design specs. In Dell's case they added a digital pen. In Toshiba's case HDMI.

Wrench00 said:
As for licensing sure you can do it for nothing. MS destroyed Netscape with a free product. It didn't cost anything. (In the traditional sense) Google is doing it with Free Android, Mozilla seems to be doing fine. Simply MS got beaten at their own game. MS dropped DVD support and built in ADS into their Windows Search sure as shit they can do it for free. Android handsets manufacturers pay fees to MS yet they still release Handsets.
Click to expand...

Microsoft did free IE because of software licensing, which is still the lion's share of Microsoft's revenue. Bing Search integration is optional, not sure how an optional feature is supposed to replace Windows licensing fees. And Microsoft also added Office 2013 Home & Student. I think Microsoft with a slightly higher cost with the right hardware. I loaded Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate on this thing last night. I was shocked by how well it ran. The thing is powerful enough to run Android in a VM on the decent side. There comes a point where I think it becomes a bang for the buck proposition. There's simply not an Android or iOS device that can these things at today's Amazon price of $289 for the 32 GB version.

Wrench00 said:
The more you post silly stuff the bigger the hypocrite you are. Most times you just present double standards and you just sound like you know absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

You've been warned once already about this kind of nonsense. Keep it civil and cut this shit out.
 
heatlesssun said:
I never said anything about this being easy. Certainly Intel created reference designs for their OEM partners so they didn't have to design these thing from scratch, that's a pretty common practice. Then OEMs tweak the design to meet their design specs. In Dell's case they added a digital pen. In Toshiba's case HDMI.



Microsoft did free IE because of software licensing, which is still the lion's share of Microsoft's revenue. Bing Search integration is optional, not sure how an optional feature is supposed to replace Windows licensing fees. And Microsoft also added Office 2013 Home & Student. I think Microsoft with a slightly higher cost with the right hardware. I loaded Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate on this thing last night. I was shocked by how well it ran. The thing is powerful enough to run Android in a VM on the decent side. There comes a point where I think it becomes a bang for the buck proposition. There's simply not an Android or iOS device that can these things at today's Amazon price of $289 for the 32 GB version.



You've been warned once already about this kind of nonsense. Keep it civil and cut this shit out.
Click to expand...

You think those Reference designs are free? Again you didn't answer my question How Long would it take to implement a Small Design Change in your Sharepoint Deployment? Why did you conveniently omit this? Its because as any large business you need to consider Demand, and the costs of implementing that demand. Simply their is no Demand for productivity for a consumption device which a tablet is. So who really cares what you can do with visual studio on a tablet. I can remote into a workstation or a VDI deployment and have all said features with out going through stupid hoops on a 70 dollar android tablet.

As for licensing IE free so its ok with a Web Browser on your platform and some how that is somehow different then Android being free?

As for keeping it civil. Please lookup https://www.google.ca/search?q=hypo...nnel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&ei=tgipUv_tHZHpoASdv4KIDQ

I am not being insulting in any way I am pointing out major flaws in your arguments and logic. So far the Market seems to think along my lines rather then yours.
 
I was simply wondering what the BOM cost was for the V8P, that's all. Not everything is a battle to the death you know.
 
WOOT about time, even tho there are tons of free addons and mods to bring it back..
 
The best thing for a new OS would be the ability to just turn the thing off with a simple button that powers it off. All of this rigamarole to just turn it off is absurd. Just fix it so turning it off and on with a power switch was all it takes. Would be a great selling point, simplicity is better.
 
Only took them 3 years to realize what the rest of us knew. Sad, really. There was no fundamental reason why both "a" start menu and new ui couldn't coexist.

That being said, I switch back and forth using the Window key, so I'm not sure if I'll use the start menu when it comes back on my Windows 8.x system or not.
 
jimh425 said:
Only took them 3 years to realize what the rest of us knew. Sad, really. There was no fundamental reason why both "a" start menu and new ui couldn't coexist.

That being said, I switch back and forth using the Window key, so I'm not sure if I'll use the start menu when it comes back on my Windows 8.x system or not.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure they knew it from the beginning. I'll bet they didn't just expect backlash to be that harsh, and just tried to make an intermediary solution before going all the way. They need apps on Windows Store, and forcing Metro ensures that more people will see the Windows Store, making devs more likely to make apps for it if they know there's a larger audience.
 
jesseejames said:
All of this rigamarole to just turn it off is absurd. Just fix it so turning it off and on with a power switch was all it takes.
Click to expand...
That is all it takes. Assuming you've configured Windows to shut down rather than sleep, anyway.
 
Tsumi said:
They need apps on Windows Store, and forcing Metro ensures that more people will see the Windows Store, making devs more likely to make apps for it if they know there's a larger audience.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. All it is *forcing* is many people to hate it, and if they are savvy enough, download a start menu replacement to suppress it. And forced Metro on the desktop becomes associated in their minds with frustration, so when they see a Windows mobile device with Metro they run the other way. That's the opposite effect of what Sinofsky convinced Ballmer would happen: that Metro would create some apple-esque halo effect where the vast installed base of Windows PC users would flock to Metro based tablets and smartphones. The disconnect ofcourse was making Metro work on desktop PC's as a total afterthought.

Microsoft's best play would have been to give users choice to easily opt out of Metro if they didn't want it and it didn't make sense for their way of working, while at the same time focusing on making Metro apps compelling out of the gate rather than the chronic under-construction-zone filled with shovelware as it stands today.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not people accept, there are benefits in the new start screen, but it seems that for most people they don't outweigh the negatives.

I think the exact same thing would be ok if it wasn't fullscreen but only took up 1/2 the screen. The people most vocal about their start menu, who had 20 level deep nested menus that took forever to scroll through, never used them anyway, and used search instead.

The one to blame is Sinofsky.
 
MrCrispy said:
Whether or not people accept, there are benefits in the new start screen, but it seems that for most people they don't outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...
The start screen is a great concept on devices without keyboard/trackpad/mouse input, like true tablets and phones. It just gets in the way otherwise, and it's integrated with the desktop experience, where 99.9% of Windows applications run, in the worst possible way.

Cue Kanye Win8 "Hold up Windows, I'm really happy for you and imma let you finish but let me shove this full screen start page in your face and stop you from looking at anything else on your multi-tasking, multi-windowed environment until I'm done being completely obnoxious while taking your full attention..."

Metro on desktop systems and laptops == Kanye. 'nuff said.
 
DPI said:
Apparently not. All it is *forcing* is many people to hate it, and if they are savvy enough, download a start menu replacement to suppress it. And forced Metro on the desktop becomes associated in their minds with frustration, so when they see a Windows mobile device with Metro they run the other way. That's the opposite effect of what Sinofsky convinced Ballmer would happen: that Metro would create some apple-esque halo effect where the vast installed base of Windows PC users would flock to Metro based tablets and smartphones. The disconnect ofcourse was making Metro work on desktop PC's as a total afterthought.

Microsoft's best play would have been to give users choice to easily opt out of Metro if they didn't want it and it didn't make sense for their way of working, while at the same time focusing on making Metro apps compelling out of the gate rather than the chronic under-construction-zone filled with shovelware as it stands today.
Click to expand...
I maintain that MS's best bet would be to simply present a different interface to the touch users ( ModernUI ) than the desktop folks. Make ModernUI available, so if any desktop users wanted to enable it they could.

In order to get developer buy-in, I'd have made it possible to run ModernUI apps on the desktop ( windowed ).

Those two changes, which are obviously possible and BAM! Windows 8 would have been a raging success.
 
pxc said:
The start screen is a great concept on devices without keyboard/trackpad/mouse input, like true tablets and phones. It just gets in the way otherwise, and it's integrated with the desktop experience, where 99.9% of Windows applications run, in the worst possible way.

Cue Kanye Win8 "Hold up Windows, I'm really happy for you and imma let you finish but let me shove this full screen start page in your face and stop you from looking at anything else on your multi-tasking, multi-windowed environment until I'm done being completely obnoxious while taking your full attention..."

Metro on desktop systems and laptops == Kanye. 'nuff said.
Click to expand...

You can continue crying all you want about the start screen reducing productivity - but its not true. In 8.1 there is simply no point it time when you have to open the start screen. EVER. Search is no longer full screen. And if you use the mouse to navigate the start menu in Windows 7 your argument is no longer valid because the mouse is an inefficient method of navigation.

XOR != OR said:
And why should they? I never understood this argument. Why should business foot the training bill and productivity loss for a GUI change?
Click to expand...

Using this argument a company would be stuck with Windows 7 forever, until the end of time, because nobody is willing to train someone how to use a different GUI.
 
wonderfield said:
Mainstream support for Windows 7 ends in about a year.
Click to expand...
Actually, my comment was related strictly to the GUI. If the windows 7 gui hung around forever ( or better, the xp gui ), why would that be a bad thing?

Users are used to it. They can accomplish their jobs perfectly fine with it. Why, then, is MS trying to fix a GUI that isn't broke.
 
XOR != OR said:
Corporate desktops don't qualify as small screen devices.
Click to expand...

Please indicated where this point was only about corporate desktops devices. And Windows 8 works much better across small screen and large screen devices than 7.
 
Dogs said:
Stagnation.
Click to expand...
And why is that bad?

To be clear, because I think there might be some confusion: I'm talking about from corporation's point of views, not MS. Obviously stagnation is bad for them because they aren't making the sales.
 
heatlesssun said:
Please indicated where this point was only about corporate desktops devices. And Windows 8 works much better across small screen and large screen devices than 7.
Click to expand...
Care to quantify that?

The claim has been made that 8 (gui) works better than 7 on small and large screen devices. So surely you must have some data to back that up.

( I have never argued that 8 is a poor interface for mobile, touch-only screens. I can see how it's better for that application )
 
XOR != OR said:
And why is that bad?

To be clear, because I think there might be some confusion: I'm talking about from corporation's point of views, not MS. Obviously stagnation is bad for them because they aren't making the sales.
Click to expand...

Stagnation is bad for everybody using Microsoft's products, not just Microsoft. Stagnation is less software being written, less features being introduced and less reward available for those competing on the platform.

Legacy is friction. If the consumer market is 3 releases ahead of the corporate market, it makes software more difficult to develop and more expensive to support. It means fewer resources can be spent on feature development, because more resources need to be spent on supporting legacy and ensuring backwards compatibility. It means software companies have to do a whole lot more to support corporations, and software companies pass these expenses directly to corporations. Licenses for corporate editions of software packages is already mind numbingly expensive, because of the product support and accountability needs of companies. If you add legacy into that mix, you're just going to make costs higher and higher.

XOR != OR said:
Actually, my comment was related strictly to the GUI. If the windows 7 gui hung around forever ( or better, the xp gui ), why would that be a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Backpedaling detected.
 
wonderfield said:
No, that doesn't work. I can read at or above the fifth grade level. Please, try again.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm happy for you. But as the entire point of the thread is the GUI, I fail to see how my having to explain that to you is back peddling.

You too, Dogs.
 
Dogs said:
Stagnation is bad for everybody using Microsoft's products, not just Microsoft. Stagnation is less software being written, less features being introduced and less reward available for those competing on the platform.

Legacy is friction. If the consumer market is 3 releases ahead of the corporate market, it makes software more difficult to develop and more expensive to support. It means fewer resources can be spent on feature development, because more resources need to be spent on supporting legacy and ensuring backwards compatibility. It means software companies have to do a whole lot more to support corporations, and software companies pass these expenses directly to corporations. Licenses for corporate editions of software packages is already mind numbingly expensive, because of the product support and accountability needs of companies. If you add legacy into that mix, you're just going to make costs higher and higher..
Click to expand...
Fascinating.

So users should be forced on to new interfaces, and corporations should be saddled with productivity losses and training costs in order to subsidize the software and OS industry?

I think you might have things slightly confused; The OS and software industry exist to make corporations MORE efficient, not less.
 
XOR != OR said:
Well, I'm happy for you. But as the entire point of the thread is the GUI, I fail to see how my having to explain that to you is back peddling.

You too, Dogs.
Click to expand...

You asked why corporations staying on Windows 7 forever would be bad. We answered appropriately. If that isn't what you meant, well don't blame us just because you asked the wrong questions.

XOR != OR said:
So users should be forced on to new interfaces, and corporations should be saddled with productivity losses and training costs in order to subsidize the software and OS industry?
Click to expand...

You mustn't have read what I said. Let me try to make it extremely simple. When companies hold on to older technology well past it's expiration, they make it more expensive for companies to give them what they want, and companies pass that cost directly back to them. It can be expensive and take a long time to move forward, but plenty of companies do it anyways, so clearly companies want the new features they're buying. The ones that don't make the effort, though, are just making software more expensive for everybody.
 
Dogs said:
You mustn't have read what I said. Let me try to make it extremely simple. When companies hold on to older technology well past it's expiration, they make it more expensive for companies to give them what they want, and companies pass that cost directly back to them. It can be expensive and take a long time to move forward, but plenty of companies do it anyways, so clearly companies want the new features they're buying. The ones that don't make the effort, though, are just making software more expensive for everybody.
Click to expand...
So how is the windows xp interface making software development more expensive?

Because from this developer's perspective, it's easier to develop software for systems I already have the tools and training and experience to accommodate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top