So instead of creating inovative software, they'd rather mess around with user interfaces and change their dot net and whatnot so people have to update. While some of the standard libraries become out of date the process doesn't usually happen so fast if a propper standard is followed. Java is a good example. Compared to dot net, both have had changes, but java was pretty much stable. This is why I rather support open source or free software. You can't sell the same idea over and over, you actually have to think up something new. Microsoft is already one of the biggest companies because they don't really care about the consumer as long as they make money, in my opinion. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Ward" <> To: "Charles Rivard" <>; "Gamers Discussion list" <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: [Audyssey] Windows Versions was Tomb Hunter Error

Hi Charles and all,
Yes, I take your point, but comparing something like Chess to a piece
of computer software like XP isn't a fair comparison in my opinion.
What it really boils down to is simple economics and making money.
You are totally looking at this from a consumers point of view. You
want to save money while Microsoft and other software developers is in
the business of making money. That obviously seams like a conflict of
interest as both sides can't get what they want in a case like that.
For example, let's assume I am the head of a major corperation. I have
hundreds of employees like programmers, secretaries, engineers,
whatever at my command. We create a certain software product in 2010
and then sell it to various PC manufacturers like Del, Compaq, HP,
Gateway, etc. Soon several people buy those computers with our
software preloaded on it. Ok, we made a very good take from that
initial point of sale, but how are we going to continue making money
off of that product after we have reachd the maximum market potential?
At that point everyone who wants or needs our software already has
it.If we offer a life time worth of free upgrades and patches we are
not going to make any more money off of those free upgrades through
our free update service. We have two choices either create a
completely new version of software to sell you, or we have to charge
for yearly updates or subscription to our update service. We can't
continue to pay our employees, pay the electric bill, and continue to
give millions of people a life time of free upgrades. We have to make
money somewhere some how.
So while I agree XP shouldn't be thrown away just because it is "old
software" Microsoft can't make much money off it any more either. The
way they force you to pay for an upgrade is by releasing new versions
of their Windows product and designing them to run on newer computers
only and dropping technical support for older Windows releases when
they have reached a certain age. It is not really fair to the
consumer, that is true, but I don't think companies like that know of
a better alternative that will continue to make money for the company
and their employees like the current method does.


Gamers mailing list __
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to

Reply via email to