On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:45:36 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 18/04/2011 17:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:50:10 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Meh. I remember when you couldn't *get* software without paying money
>>> for it! :-P
>>>
>>> $20 for a word processor isn't expensive. $200 is.
>>
>> Then you must be older than you claim, because freeware has been around
>> nearly as long as computing has been.
> 
> I don't know about freeware. When I was a kid, "shareware" was very
> popular. Every issue of Amiga Format would come loaded down with useful
> little utilities that people had written, which you were /supposed/ to
> send money for if you use it regularly. I don't personally know of
> anybody who actually sent a cheque for 4 CHF or whatever to the remote
> country where the author lived.

Most of the magazines I entered code in had no such request.  But 
freeware was all the rage (along with shareware) back then.

>> $200 isn't very much money if you have it.  We've been over that
>> before.
> 
> OK, so apparently $200 is currently roughly £120. (Which still doesn't
> take into account average incomes, average cost of living, etc., which
> presumably also differs between the UK and the US.) Even so, it still
> seems like a hell of a lot of money for a program that doesn't even *do*
> very much and isn't especially complicated.

If it isn't especially complicated, then why do you have problems 
understanding what some of the options do or are for?

> Silly me, I'm thinking that prices have something to do with what it
> costs to produce something. This is the 21st century. Prices are driven
> by how much you can rip people off and get away with it...

Have you written a word processor?  Do you know how much work and testing 
goes into creating something like MS Word or OpenOffice Writer?

You are making the mistake of assuming it *must* be easy.

>> But as Darren said, if you don't want to pay $200 for it, don't - use a
>> free alternative.  But don't be surprised if you discover that the free
>> version doesn't have the same features as the $200 one does or can't
>> read the files that people send you.
> 
> I *do* use one of the free alternatives. At home, anyway. At work, I use
> what my employer provides. More to the point, I have to *support* what
> my employer provides, which is why it's so infuriating that there's no
> documentation. [Which is how this discussion started in the first
> place.]

But Andy, it's just a simple word processor.  Nothing goes into it, 
remember?  $200 is too expensive, so clearly it must be easy to use.

(Yes, I'm using sarcasm again)

> Of course, OpenOffice has no documentation either. But then you're just
> grateful to be getting a reasonably good bit of software for free...

I find the built-in help to be pretty useful myself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message