cyborg wrote: > > count me in. > I always use the newest version > whay would anyone want to improve something if everyone used the old > versions?
To sell it again, of course !! "Improvements" also come at a price - sometimes very high - that has nothing to do with the cost. The "improver" wants to differentiate his product from the previous version(s) and usually does this by changing the appearance. The North American auto industry does this regularly. I needed a new car 10 years ago, but refused to buy the superior but buttugly products they were selling, and didn't need a SUV. A certain German manufacturer takes a different approach. Their cars have a "look" that has been carefully maintained throughout the years with only slow and subtle modernization. Their "improvements" are real, and worthwhile. In contrast, I read on AQC that Windows XP on a 1GHz box runs so slow that you can see it drawing the boxes. Newer is NOT always better. In fact, with software, newer is almost always a net loss. Why support THAT philosophy ? In the case of Arachne, where active selling is not taking place, non-subtle appearance changes are totally unnecessary in my opinion, and improvements themselves should be quite adequate to prompt users to upgrade, I think. Of course, Michael will have his own reasons for periodically changing the appearance. It could be that an "improvement" such as a reduction in size or increase in speed necessitates an appearance change. Like removing the split on the lower right side status bar or eliminating the last part of the button animation. I don't mind these, but I thought that last thing was a bug. <G> Or maybe he just likes the "new" look better. He did say at one time that he didn't like the original (uncarved) shape of the buttons when he first made them. Different tastes here, I guess.<GG> - Clarence Verge -- - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/ - The internet is infected - Windows is a VIRUS !! --
