> I'm starting to agree with Tom. If I have to buy new software every > time MS decides it's time for a change ....
That's a bit extreme, Sue. MS has always bent over backwards for compatibility. As I've mentioned here before, I still use DOS programs that were written in the early 80s for a CPU that no longer exists. They work fine. I run a LOT of software, and all I had to do was get free updates for a couple of programs and find one free replacement for software from a vendor who refused to update. What new software did you have to buy? Questions to ponder: 1. Did MS make changes in Vista just to annoy customers, or were there good reasons? 2. If MS is (rightly) criticized for Windows security, and it makes change to improve security, and because of that a small number of programs that insist on running in an insecure way no longer work, is that a good reason to criticize MS, or would the criticism be better leveled at the software vendors? 3. If a software vendor won't provide updates to work with improved Vista security, is that MS's fault, or is it the vendor's? Does the vendor care about its customers, or is it just trying to sell new stuff? ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
