[573v14n7]

That would be true if the sales volumes remained static, but somehow you seem to have missed the fact that there are somewhat more Windows licensees today than there were in 1995. Also, you're discounting the enormous differences between Windows 95 and its predecessor, versus the relatively small differences between Windows 11 and its direct predecessor.

A difference so small that Microsoft initially intended to market Windows 11 as a new version of Windows 10. Other than those two massive, almost insurmountably significant errors, your reasoning was sound.

[Cumpiler69]

>Also, you're discounting the enormous differences between Windows 95 and its predecessor, versus the relatively small differences between Windows 11 and its direct predecessor.

You're omitting the fact that earlier versions of Windows were more or less a one and done deal and not required massive continued development and updates modern Windows requires. Plus the much more numerous workforce Microsoft has on the payroll now versus back in those days on the Windows teams.

Your argument is factless and only based on the subjective opinion of "Windows 11 doesn't seem to different to me compared to Windows 10, so it can't cost too much to develop" which is silly and childish and shows your lack of understanding here.

[573v14n7]

No my argument was based on the fact that Microsoft themselves were going to release Windows 11 as Windows 10X and decided at the last minute to rebrand it.

That my friend is what we call a fact.

Just because you don't like being wrong doesn't mean you arent, and resorting to calling me childish for arguing with me reflects more on you than it does on me.