Hi Ivan,

My comments follow your text.

At 10:42 AM 3/21/06, you wrote:
>snip
>Your example of the radio is not so different from software, I 
>think.  Most the software "guts" don't change that much from one version 
>to the next. The UI may change, but the underlying algorithms don't change 
>much.  The radio's UI is its knobs and switches.  Software has the 
>additional advantage of low variable costs - printing copies is as cheap 
>as burning a CD (or 2).

It's not quite that simple in the programming world.  Each operating system 
(read Windows version) has changed the interface with the system and the 
display.  Older code has to be recompiled using newer tools that don't run 
under the older operating system.  Hardware has also changed, which further 
changes the way the software interface talks to the various components that 
make up the computer.  You just can't take old software, run it through a 
new compiler and expect it to work.

Further, you would like for your product to take advantage of more memory, 
better graphics, new interface ports, etc.  All of that requires rewriting 
the underlying code.  Just like the plumbing in an old house, as soon as 
you try to replace a faucet, you spring a leak in an upstream joint.  What 
starts out simple, tends to grow - this is why software regression testing 
is done.  You have to make sure you didn't break something that previously 
worked in the process of adding or fixing something else.

If you add the above to the bloat in Microsoft code for each successive 
version of Windows, you can't help growing the software.  This is why 
virtually every software vendor charges for new versions of well 
established programs.  There are man-years of effort just to recompile and 
groom a new version.

>As to the acquistions and mergers, you have a much higher opinion about 
>that stuff than I do.  I see that as mostly business maneuvers designed to 
>reduce competition and advance management careers, not as increasing the 
>value proposition to the customers.

If you look at Protel's acquisitions, all but one were to get software 
capabilities they didn't previously have in Protel.  They acquired NEUROCAD 
for a router, INCASES for signal integrity software, INNOVATIVE CAD 
Software Inc. to get CAMTASTIC, METAMOR to get FPGA software, TASKING to 
get hardware/software integration and a bigger distribution network, 
MICROCODE to get simulation, etc.  The only acquisition I believe was done 
for purely revenge purposes was ACCEL Technologies to get PCAD.  ACCEL 
Technologies years before had marketed TANGO which was a thinly disguised 
version of the first Protel.  I believe the Accel deal to distribute Protel 
went sour somewhere along the way, resulting in Tango.  The year 2000 
acquisition of Accel may have been a final revenge for whatever went on 
between Nick Martin and Accel Technologies regarding Tango and Protel in 
the mid 1980's.

>I've made my choice in this matter.  I like 99SE mostly, and will stay 
>with it for as long as I can be productive with it.  When that era comes 
>to an end, or something better (and/or cheaper) comes along, I'll reevaluate.

Live long and prosper.

Regards - Harry

snip  


 
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum

To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]

Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com

Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
 
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]

Reply via email to