>I've looked at some and I basically agree BUT... can you blame them too much? If they see what MS gets away with, then why would they put any more into the job? MS basically 'sets the standard' and virtually all others follow.

Uh, Ok. but maybe the simpler explanation is that immensely complex software is immensely difficult to document. And it is virtually impossible to include every behavior, characteristic and nuance in the initial set of docs. At least there is a KB where MS continually strives to improve, ammend and add on to the documentation.

>Things like MSDN and other online stuff makes it much better than average, I will admit. But a lot of this is to supplement what should have been in the basic product documentation in the first place.

So you are holding MS to a standard that you have never seen displayed?

>All of the KB articles answered by "working as designed" or titled "How to..." are strong indications of failure in the original product documentation, else "the design" would be evident from the documentation and the "How to" also would be clear.

I think this is awfully unrealistic. 4th gen development products are inherently extremely complex beasts. As I stated above, the designers of the software can't know all of the ways that people will use the functions and features, and its not evident at creation time that any of these issues will arise. I deal with this issue with my software all of the time.

>No, I am wondering out loud if the profit potential for MS Press publications might be one of the major reasons why basic product documentation is deficient in the first place. *If* in fact the software product *is* (said to be) cheaper because of the present situation, then I would say:
>a) the trend toward CD-ROM/DVD documentation will kill this 'argument';

Documentation is not expensive because of the media. It is expensive to produce.

>b) Maybe they could offer a higher quality integrated documentation for a higher price.

What's the difference between buying ot from MS, or buying Tamar and Ted's Hacker's guide, and using it's included chm file as your docs?

>This is very very BAD. It is the REAL killer of innovation. If MS can make their apps run faster or be much easier to employ by coding hidden OS functionality (known (or understood) only by them then others cannot possibly compete with that.

What have you ever seen that makes you think Office or other apps use hidden OS functionality? Are you making this up?

>OK, but why are you so sure that they are releasing the WHOLE story to outside developers. I simply have to doubt that they do.

Why???