I expect a new os to support application programs that worked fine on the previous os. If not, the necessary modifications that I need to make should be clearly spelled out or obvious. As an alternative, I think it is perfectly ok for M$ (for example) to stop supporting all dos programs in Vista 64. That is clear and I can tell my clients that they need to upgrade to a windows program. In fact, I welcome this as it helps me with support.
What I think is obnoxious and unreasonable is to take a working dialog, program, whatever, and rename it and move it to some obscure place just so end users get the impression that this is a new os and worth upgrading. I am well aware that end users who only do email and maybe some word processing will think Vista is ok. However, that is not all that my users do. My users need my software in order to pay their bills and they expect me to be able to support them because they are not experts in hardware or software. M$ seems to go out of their way to make supporting existing software difficult. That is stupid and near sighted and serves no good purpose. ----- Original Message ----- From: William Sanders / EFG To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 3:37 PM Subject: Win7, Innosetup and other stuff I take a different approach to testing apps on a new(ish) OS, that , when done, leaves a total blueprint of that OS's internal calls with any app that I'm testing. I switched over to this technique late in 1999, and never looked back. I can understand the gripe and moan philosophy, but if I engage in it for more than 3 minutes, I'm doing my product line a great disservice - and come on - isn't that wot it's all about ? You want yer software to work on new(ish) OS's, so you have New Users Paying New Licensing Fees... Or did I miss your point, in it's entirety? Mondo Regards [Bil] -- William Sanders / efGroup {rmv the DOT BOB to reply} Mondo Cool TeleCom -> http://www.efgroup.net/efgcog.html Failing dotNet Project? -> http://www.dotnetconversions.com [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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/022401c98ba9$2a51af20$8600a...@w2k3s02 ** 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.
