Tweet
Before I launch into this, I should point out that there are two basic modes I use Windows in: server (building domains), and word processor. I really don't do much else with it because, well, I tend to use other OSes most of the time. Because I'm not a hardcore Windows user (note the emphasis), my perspective on all this may be a little off. Begin:
The last time I used Windows as my primary OS - that is, as what I booted into constantly to accomplish day-to-day gruntwork - was around about 1998, though I'd been becoming less and less dependent on it from about 1996 onwards. I didn't have any motivation to move away from it for political reasons; I just didn't like what it offered. Now I'm stuck with it because it's what work uses.
I grew up with 8-bit Ataris. In 1990, I got my first Atari ST and began to see the benefits of a GUI-based OS. But Atari announced that they were leaving the home computer market, and I was lumped with a dead duck machine. Being in college at the time, I needed something to work with that I could get software for, so I picked up a 486/25 (IIRC) cheap at an auction. It had Windows 3.0 installed, and I stuck with it.
For a time, I ran the Atari and the PC side-by-side. PC games sucked compared to the ST, but the PC could multitask (sort of). Unfortunately, the advent of Internet access in my dorm coupled with the Atari's lack of ethernet spelt the end for it, and it went off to my parents' basement. Which was annoying, because the ST had a really good software base behind it - I still did most of my work on the ST, and brought it over to the 486 for conversion or presentation in whatever PC-based format my college required.
About this time, the Pentium started to gain a foothold in the market, and the PC really took off. This forced me into being a Windows user, but all sorts of software (free and otherwise) was at least available for it to perform all kinds of tasks. Stupid little basic things that weren't essential to actually getting anything done, but let you do things you wanted to do. Icon editors. Games. Utilities. You name it, there was probably a binary that could do it, and it was most likely freeware. Why? Because people released software on the basis that it performed a task you should be able to accomplish.
Now fast forward the best part of a decade. The PC remains the dominant architecture, and Windows is the dominant OS. Compared to the 486 I had back then (or the P75 that followed it, or any of the other Wintel boxes of the era), we're light-years ahead in terms of both sophistication and usability. So here is my question:
WHY CAN'T I FIND A DECENT FREE MIDI EDITOR?
It's like the entire Windows development community has decided that their software is the most precious thing on the face of the planet and charge accordingly. Fifty bucks to edit a MIDI file. Twenty to tweak icons. $100 for an image convertor (yes, really - I saw it this morning). They present nothing new, yet seem to think that their software - essentially just an eye-candy version of what was available ten years ago - is somehow deserving of commercial-package prices when it is, in nearly every respect, inferior to commercially-sold products.
Guess why there was so much freely-available software back in the day. Yep, it was mostly quick-&-dirty. Rarely pretty, functional at best, and quite often obtuse to use. BUT IT WORKED. It did what it was supposed to do, and nothing more. Perhaps the author suggested you might send him or her a contribution if you used and/or liked it. That it was technically inferior (read: no pretty box and GUI) didn't matter, because it got the job done.
Maybe this boils largely down to the fact that, like I said, I'm not a Windows user. Maybe this is the norm in Windowsland now; it sure seems to be from where I'm sitting. I just find it depressing that nobody seems to actually write stuff for it anymore that is truly freely available.
And, unfortunately, I have to use Windows to accomplish what I want to do because I'm dealing with a package that was written specifically for it. This entire rant was spawned by my idly looking for a MIDI editor to kill some time while I waited for something else to finish.
The last time I used Windows as my primary OS - that is, as what I booted into constantly to accomplish day-to-day gruntwork - was around about 1998, though I'd been becoming less and less dependent on it from about 1996 onwards. I didn't have any motivation to move away from it for political reasons; I just didn't like what it offered. Now I'm stuck with it because it's what work uses.
I grew up with 8-bit Ataris. In 1990, I got my first Atari ST and began to see the benefits of a GUI-based OS. But Atari announced that they were leaving the home computer market, and I was lumped with a dead duck machine. Being in college at the time, I needed something to work with that I could get software for, so I picked up a 486/25 (IIRC) cheap at an auction. It had Windows 3.0 installed, and I stuck with it.
For a time, I ran the Atari and the PC side-by-side. PC games sucked compared to the ST, but the PC could multitask (sort of). Unfortunately, the advent of Internet access in my dorm coupled with the Atari's lack of ethernet spelt the end for it, and it went off to my parents' basement. Which was annoying, because the ST had a really good software base behind it - I still did most of my work on the ST, and brought it over to the 486 for conversion or presentation in whatever PC-based format my college required.
About this time, the Pentium started to gain a foothold in the market, and the PC really took off. This forced me into being a Windows user, but all sorts of software (free and otherwise) was at least available for it to perform all kinds of tasks. Stupid little basic things that weren't essential to actually getting anything done, but let you do things you wanted to do. Icon editors. Games. Utilities. You name it, there was probably a binary that could do it, and it was most likely freeware. Why? Because people released software on the basis that it performed a task you should be able to accomplish.
Now fast forward the best part of a decade. The PC remains the dominant architecture, and Windows is the dominant OS. Compared to the 486 I had back then (or the P75 that followed it, or any of the other Wintel boxes of the era), we're light-years ahead in terms of both sophistication and usability. So here is my question:
WHY CAN'T I FIND A DECENT FREE MIDI EDITOR?
It's like the entire Windows development community has decided that their software is the most precious thing on the face of the planet and charge accordingly. Fifty bucks to edit a MIDI file. Twenty to tweak icons. $100 for an image convertor (yes, really - I saw it this morning). They present nothing new, yet seem to think that their software - essentially just an eye-candy version of what was available ten years ago - is somehow deserving of commercial-package prices when it is, in nearly every respect, inferior to commercially-sold products.
Guess why there was so much freely-available software back in the day. Yep, it was mostly quick-&-dirty. Rarely pretty, functional at best, and quite often obtuse to use. BUT IT WORKED. It did what it was supposed to do, and nothing more. Perhaps the author suggested you might send him or her a contribution if you used and/or liked it. That it was technically inferior (read: no pretty box and GUI) didn't matter, because it got the job done.
Maybe this boils largely down to the fact that, like I said, I'm not a Windows user. Maybe this is the norm in Windowsland now; it sure seems to be from where I'm sitting. I just find it depressing that nobody seems to actually write stuff for it anymore that is truly freely available.
And, unfortunately, I have to use Windows to accomplish what I want to do because I'm dealing with a package that was written specifically for it. This entire rant was spawned by my idly looking for a MIDI editor to kill some time while I waited for something else to finish.
Comment