SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Corel Corp.
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Picanoc who wrote (9366)6/18/2000 3:59:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon   of 9798
 
Now I'm finding it amusing that certain people are placing emphasis apparently on Corel's products being a mish-mash of antiquated code without discussing this issue in context.

Is it not true that MSFT products, in trying to remain backwards compatible with its DOS and other 16bit programs was/is guilty of essentially the same thing?

Lemme give you an example. One of my weaknesses is computerized war games and flight simulators. One of the games I have like over the last several years is Steel Panthers. In its DOS form, the game only consumed a mere 100-145 Meg of drive space (depending on the options chosen).

But the minute someone builds a Windows98 compatible version of the game, it suddenly ballons to 285Meg, containing essentially the same or less amounts of content).

So my question here is exactly why is that? Can we blame Corel for these coding issues (EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T SEEM TO CAUSE PROBLEMS THAT COMPROMISE THE PRODUCTS QUALITY IN A MAJOR WAY!!!), when much of the problem is due to the OS they are trying to support, AS WELL WE MAINTAINING BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY WITH PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF WP??

I admit that any application that has been designed for use under Windoze95/98/2000 is utter "bloatware". I think the entire market understands that. The question is whether Corel is any more guilty of that than MSFT? Personally, I don't think so.

Let's look at all the problems that MSFT has had with Windows 95/98/NT... They consistently have put out faulty products that they have failed to fix. Instead, they make a new OS and charge people even more money for a product that should have been done right in the first place.

And one more point... MSFT has had little reason to provide all of the necessary API information to Corel (or anyone else for that matter). How many of these issues with WP are solely the responsibility of Corel programmers rather than MSFT failing to provide the necessary coding information for their OS?

Let's try to maintain some objectivity here if we're going to lamblast Corel's products. It is certainly unfair to claim that MSFT's product line is any better than overall to Corel's. The independent reviews don't seem to substantiate that perspective. (correct me if I'm wrong.. by showing the reviews).

Regards,

Ron

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News