Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Picanoc who wrote (9366)	6/18/2000 3:59:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to 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

To: Picanoc who wrote (9366)	6/18/2000 9:41:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9798

Really, it's pointless to try and bring a POS like WP into the current century. A better approach would be to start a new class framework in Java targeted toward wordprocessing, spreadsheets and presentation software. You have to just do it. You start at the bottom, you manage the process but you don't start talking products until the framework is done. I don't mean a blank check to developers to deliver nothing, that will only happen if you have incompetent managers and don't get external reviews of the progress. So Corel should not attempt this. The bottle-neck code, which isn't much, could be compiled as native code. You could compile test pure Java and ship a natively compiled version (also tested) in parallel on both Linux and Windows. The thing is, Corel stamps out CDs, they don't develop squat. Such an effort would require seasoned OO programmers, not some 4GL GUI hacks working on some decade old piece of Windows bloatware. The nerve these guys have in claiming it's a Linux product: there was a UNIX version of WP but, lo and behold, they are running a slow, bug-ridden emulator to fake the product into thinking it's actually Windows. It's NOT the UNIX version "ported" to Linux. Hell, it's not even a port of the Windows version. Star Office is compiled natively for Linux, it's a true port and does not require a slow, buggy emulator. As you have suggested, this Clown Corporation's inept management, led by Bozo the Cowpland, couldn't develop their way out of a wet paper bag. They had the opportunity to do this but failed miserably. They didn't even have the talent to execute a proper analysis of the tools and the platform. Even a rank novice software manager knows how to go about benchmarking bottle-neck code and critical paths. You don't spend a year just to figure out you don't know what you're doing in terms of the design and implementation. Java is hugely successful, but these guys are still blaming Sun for their incompetence. You can go down the list of "big" products that fizzled from their, gag, Data Mining software to Video Conferencing to Network Computers to Java products and now Linux: total failures, every one. Video conferencing is highly successful, Network Computers are highly successful, Java is highly successful, Linux is highly successful. Really, you have to look to Corel to see how to fail in markets growing in double and sometimes triple digits. I might add, Microsoft isn't in any of the above markets. Corel is truly are the laughing stalk of the industry.