Alan,
> >> I have been running VFP6 and 9 SP1 on Vista SP1 and now SP2 > >> without any problems. > > > > Evidence is that Vista's lack of backwards compatibility caused (at > > least) this problem. > > > Every version of Fox from 2.5 for DOS through 2.6 For Windows > through to VFP9 SP1 seems OK for me on Vista. Sorry Bill, but there it > is. If they didn't care about backward compatibility they would have removed the > Win16 and virtual DOS machine emulation that allows me to run > the first two a long time ago, but it's still there in the 32-bit operating > systems. It's at least as good as the situation with Apple (to pick > another major OS at random), as far as I can see. Of course the problem turned out to be BLAT, not VFP, but the customer doesn't know or care about that, he just sees this bad report coming out of Vista and sends it to me to resolve. From his point of view, it was a problem with the program and Vista. >From my point of view, it's another Vista compatibility problem. This time not a show-stopper, but suppose BLAT didn't have an upgrade. Fortunately I also support an Outlook Interface, so not catastrophic, but something like this (compatibility failures due to replacement operating systems which buyers get by default, so they are thrust on us whether we like it or not) could be much worse. At the least, this customer - and I - have just experienced another Vista compatibility problem. This isn't the first and I expect not the last. And why would BLAT - or any working program - suddenly become "incompatible" anyway? Why can't the operator at this time be asked if Vista should stopping inspecting program 'xyz' as a culprit for anything, presuming it still works at all? And how would Vista even know this program is 'incompatible'? My guess is that Vista is flagging API calls that aren't structured per the latest MS brainstorm on how to organize programs and interfaces. This begs the critique that had they done it right in the first place they could have extended rather then changed the interface (don't we all write interfaces that can be extended?) But instead they (seemingly) changed the interface, thus the incompatibility. Of course this forced another round of make-work, so the industry isn't yelling to loud. But for the small software companies, these events are like earthquakes, some more destructive then others. In this particular case, a few hours to update BLAT, no big deal, but I am wondering "what will they do next?" Bill _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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.
