Cathy Wissink (from the Windows division at Microsoft) will be discussing
the issue at her presentation in Hong Kong, talking about the next version
of Windows and Unicode (though I am not sure how much detail she will give
in the presentation). There will be more detail in the paper, obviously, but
probably from a technical side, not a financial one (since she is a PM, not
I do know from various random conversations that it took them a little by
surprise (but in retrospect I am sure it made all the sense in the world!).
Like all of us would like to do, I imagine Microsoft was able to adjust to
saving a lot of money without too much pain. But someone from MS who
actually knows about such details would have to say more on *that* subject.
Any reasonably savy tech person who understands their own product can
probably do good estimates on their costs now, and with the hint of what the
new model would be like they could also give good estimates of the costs of
the new model. Unicode just happens to be the best/easiest way to accomplish
it, thats all.
Maybe a new sloan? "Unicode, it's *convenient*."
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard, Francois M" <Francois.M.Richard@usa.xerox.com>
To: "Unicode List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: Unicode market acceptance
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:26 PM
> > To: Unicode List
> > Subject: Re: Unicode market acceptance
> > One of the most compelling arguments for those managers is
> > the financial
> > one... ease of support for multiple languages. If you look at
> > the cost of
> > the multiple binary releases of a product like Win95 and
> > compare it to the
> > single EXE model, the issue is clear...
> I sure would like to look at a comparison of these costs. Are they
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:20 EDT