At 12:26 2015-06-16, Ted Roche <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Gene Wirchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Or maybe, Microsoft should quit cutting us off at the knees.
I really think we agree on this issue, but seem to be using different
ways to say it.
Quite.
Microsoft as a vendor does not have my interests nor those of my
clients at heart. Their means of making money is by forcing me to
upgrade to products I don't need with features I don't want, and make
me update software which was meeting my customer's needs, often
breaking working software. For large and complex line-of-business
applications, this can be costly to the point of infeasible.
Quite.
If a vendor so poorly meets my needs, I conclude I need to seek out
other vendors.
It has gotten about to that point for me. The next time I buy
a system, I am *much* less likely to go Microsoft. I might have to
because of the VFP app I support, but apart from that, I do not have
really strong reasons to stay with them. Data conversion could be an
issue for a few programs, but it might not be after all. There is
the learning curve of a new system, but that is not that much for
someone like me; I am more concerned that a new system can do
everything that I want, not so much how.
> Your argument could be used to say not to use VFP.
Yes, it could, although I did not advance that point. VFP is a
delightfully capable product that fits a unique niche. Unfortunately,
VFP's owner is not interesting in promoting it. Again, if the
interests of the two parties don't align...
Quite.
I worked very closely with Microsoft as an MVP, an active beta tester,
a "partner" in various "Partner Networks" over the years, a speaker at
their conferences, and an attendee at various NDA functions, in hopes
of getting them to see that perspective. Overall, I think I helped
prolong FoxPro's life. While the product had a long run, I've
concluded I need to diversify the tools I can offer to my clients, for
their benefit and mine.
Quite possibly, but maybe they did not care enough for your
efforts to be relevant to them. Your efforts were/are appreciated by
many of us.
>> Commercial and proprietary OSes are going to do what they want to do,
>> not what necessarily what you want.
>
> Do you really think that I do not know this?
You complained that a 1990's 16-bit utility built to run on DOS won't
run in the latest 64-bit OS that includes a 32-bit emulator to run
Windows-on-Windows for 15-year-backward compatibility. The CMD shell
may look a lot like DOS, but it is not COMMAND.COM. DOS was built with
a lot of assumptions that it owned the entire machine (all 640k!) and
could do whatever it wanted, something you can't do in a
cooperatively-multitasking machine with gigabytes of RAM and 2,4,8 or
more CPUs/threads. If you want to run DOS, you ought to run DOS,
either in a VM or an emulator. Windows hasn't run under DOS since
Windows 98 (okay, WinME, but no one used that), so it's time to run
DOS differently.
IBM has managed to have long-time compatibility on their
mainframes. Compatibility can be done if one has the will to do
so. Microsoft does not.
I really think your question above, "2) Microsoft broke 16-bit
software on 64-bit Windows 7. Why couldn't
they have just kept the functionality?" has a pretty clear answer: it
was not in their interests. Maintaining a 16-bit interface means a lot
of very old and questionable code would need to be brought along and
re-compiled in a new OS, introducing maintenance costs and security
liabilities. Turning the question around, "why should they have kept
the functionality?" I don't see that there was a downside to them to
drop it.
I think there was a downside for them, but maybe/probably not a
big enough one. Microsoft has, over the years, trained me to expect
to be ill-treated. Now that there are viable alternatives, I need
approximately one more break to kick the Microsoft habit. Once gone,
I will likely be gone for good.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
