7 minutes ago, 79wjd said:
Yeah, when hardware was expensive, higher dev costs made more sense. As hardware gets cheaper, high dev costs no longer make sense.
I understand that, but when you are a software company, which is by far the most widely used PC operating system, then maybe you should invest some money into optimizing it.
"It costs money" is to me not a valid excuse for doing a poor job. Again, imagine if Volkswagen used that excuse for poor miles per gallon results compared to their competitors.
"It costs a lot of money to make the engines more efficient".
And yes I understand that Microsoft makes money basically regardless of how well optimized Windows is. I can understand business decisions for how to allocate resources without having to agree with it. What I am saying here is that I wish Microsoft would take better care of Windows than they do.
As a consumer and user of their product, I don't really care how much money they make from something. What I care about is how good the product is. I am not here to argue how Microsoft can create a product I will buy with as little effort as possible. I am here to voice my opinion about how I think Microsoft should make the product better for me. I am not employed by Microsoft so I don't have any obligation to defend them. I am a user so I should express what I want.