>>The point isn't faster development. The point is faster and easier maintenance. That's were the bulk of the time (read cost) connected with almost any system is.
>
>Do well designed systems usually require maintenance? When was the last time a microsoft engineer came on site to perform maintenance on Word97?
>Okay come back with SR2! Maybe we're talking from different perspectives. Commercial software development vs contract programing. The dream is to develop that copyright that will retire you to Maui while you can still enjoy it. You can do that with VFP!! You can write a book or two and do Okay. I appologize. You're right.

Yep, I am.

Terry,

I'm not exactly certain what you're saying here. However, I'll work from the perspective that you're disputing my previous post.

In the instance of a software company like MS, there's simply no question that the cost of maintenance and modification are higher than the cost of development. New versions aren't written from the "ground up". They take code from the previous version, make major changes, and eventually release the new version. The more difficult this process, the higher the cost. It's maintenance. Further, this doesn't even take into account things such as services packs or the research into a bug report than may end up with a workaround being published in a KB article. To demonstrate this, consider that the orginal Windows calculator application had a bug from its introuction (at least as early as Windows 2.x). This bug wasn't found and corrected until Windows 95. Simply, it isn't a question of an MS engineer "going on site".

While your entitled to your opinion, it is just that: opinion. My statement wasn't based on opinion. It was based on a premise that is supported by scientific study.

So in short: < Bzzzt > I'm sorry. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.