Should Microsoft Protect Our Investment In Windows Software?

[ulTRAX]

"John" wrote:
> Technology is always changing. Technology is changing for the better.
>
> If you accept those two assumptions then it's impossible for any company, be
> it Intel or Microsoft, to always have a more technologically advanced
> product that works with older technologies.

Uh? I seem to recall that once MS seemed pretty intent on preserving
backward compatibility, and even includes a backward compatibility mode in XP
and Vista.... not that it's worked yet with anything in Vista. And I also
seem to recall that aside from Itatium, Intel seems pretty intent on
preserving the X86 architecture even going into its quad core chips. Without
a dedicated effort for backward compatibility MS leaves itself open to
consumers/businesses jumping ship… breaking out of the proprietary
vendor-lock.

Making radical changes in an OS isn't like Shick coming up with a new razor
blade that won't fit their old ones. When we're talking about changes in an
OS we can’t just dismiss all the hundreds of billions consumers and
businesses have invested in hardware and software dependent on that OS. Yet
that seems to be what you’re saying is perfectly acceptable.

 

[ulTRAX]

"Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> ulTRAX wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for proving my point Bruce... that the Vista Jihadists here hold
> > everyone else responsible for Vista's problems EXECPT Microsoft.

> On the contrary, you've proven my point. (As nicely demonstrated by
> your having to resort to name-calling, rather than rational arguments.)

Gee... thanks for even ANOTHER demonstration that Vista Jihadists here hold
everyone else responsible for Vista's problems EXECPT Microsoft. You can call
it "name calling" if you feel the need. But it’s clear your post is a lame
defense against the core arguments in my posts that some here are
ideologically incapable of holding MS responsible for ANYTHING. It's as
unbalanced and pathetic a one-variable argument as the Orwellian Right uses
to blame ALL budget deficits on spending never on irresponsible tax cuts
designed to create deficits.

But if such arguments are the best you can make… and give you comfort… feel
free to keep spewing them. Just don’t count on me reading them.

 

[Frank]

ulTRAX wrote:
> "John" wrote:
>
>>Technology is always changing. Technology is changing for the better.
>>
>>If you accept those two assumptions then it's impossible for any company, be
>>it Intel or Microsoft, to always have a more technologically advanced
>>product that works with older technologies.
>
>
> Uh? I seem to recall that once MS seemed pretty intent on preserving
> backward compatibility, and even includes a backward compatibility mode in XP
> and Vista.... not that it's worked yet with anything in Vista.

hehehe...you first need to try it dipsh*t! You proly haven't yet figured
out that you're posting to the MS Vista ng and quite a number of us in
here have now been using Vista for over two yrs now (beta+RTM) and quite
a number of us have installed all kinds of legacy software using the
compatibility mode.

And I also
> seem to recall that aside from Itatium, Intel seems pretty intent on
> preserving the X86 architecture even going into its quad core chips. Without
> a dedicated effort for backward compatibility MS leaves itself open to
> consumers/businesses jumping ship… breaking out of the proprietary
> vendor-lock.

Give up trying to be a genius market predictor cause it ain't working.
>
> Making radical changes in an OS isn't like Shick coming up with a new razor
> blade that won't fit their old ones. When we're talking about changes in an
> OS we can’t just dismiss all the hundreds of billions consumers and
> businesses have invested in hardware and software dependent on that OS. Yet
> that seems to be what you’re saying is perfectly acceptable.

You obviously have no idea what you're doing concerning computers or the
marketing of computer software.
I wouldn't give up my day job if I were you...if you have one.
Frank

 

[Frank]

ulTRAX wrote:

> Gee I thought I responded to your post. Do you REALLY think I would NOT want
> to get these apps running? I can't find the post... maybe it was one of many
> that that disappeared posting to MS's online board. One gets a notice that
> the board is too busy and if one backs up to the last page, the post is goe.
>
> Here's the bottom line. I wrote that I misstated that I had Nero 8 when I
> really had 7. I now DO have 8 which IS Vista compatible.
>
> As for WS_FTP... I tried your suggestion and it did NOT work. I got the same
> errors as before.
>
> So if you can't make a point without gross distortions... you haven't made a
> point... have you Cupcake?

Oh, so you wanna dance huh?
Well bozo, I've got WS_FTP Pro v9.0 perfectly installed and running on 4
Vista Ultimate boxes.
That is my point dickhead!
Either you're not installing using the compatibility mode correctly or
else you're just a fukkin troll.
So which is it my sweet little cupcake?
Frank

 

[mayayana]

> > >
> > > Thanks for proving my point Bruce... that the Vista Jihadists here
hold
> > > everyone else responsible for Vista's problems EXECPT Microsoft.
>

Personally, I wouldn't use Vista unless Mr. Gates
pays me for the hardship, but it's still hard to
sympathize with your case. You've been arguing for
four days now with anyone who will join in. As I
understand your story it goes something like this:

You had to buy a new PC in a pinch, without any planning.
The new PC had Vista, which you assumed would be better
than XP. So far, so good. It's not easy to be informed
about such things unless you're very tech-oriented.

But then you clearly decided to keep Vista, despite having an
XP CD. And you've already even started buying new software
to replace the old. You're wasting money buying new software
you don't need, so that you can use a new OS that you
don't need, and yet you blame Microsoft for that?

Microsoft should not be mistaken for a software company.
Theirt primary business is making money, like a used car dealer.
If they can find a way to get your money, they will. It makes
no sense to stand outside the dealership yelling that you paid
too much when you not only already paid them but, in fact,
you even *want* to keep the car!

 

[ulTRAX]

This sounded like an intriguing approach. Sadly MS's VM doesn't run on Vista
Home "Premium". But I’ll look into further.

"Charlie Tame" wrote to JJ:

> Actually JJ it might be a good idea to try the MS virtual machine and
> install XP as guest if the original XP CD is available with key...

 

[ulTRAX]

"mayayana" wrote:

> But then you clearly decided to keep Vista, despite having an
> XP CD.

Yes I do have an XP disk. But while there's no sign of it being damaged and
while I was able to use the Recovery Console, I don't know if I can trust it.
Before I knew for sure that the old HD was fried, I did try to reinstall XP a
number of times and kept getting errors that the disk could not be read. It
was the last straw in deciding I needed a new PC because for a while I was
thinking of looking for a cheap IDE HD... just enough to keep my old PC alive
long enough until the new AMD quad cores came out. But if I could not be sure
I could install XP on it, I didn’t want to get stuck with an obsolete IDE
drive I could probably not return.

 

[MICHAEL]

"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:918EE77E-5B9A-48CC-85F7-CCAEACAA8B28@microsoft.com...
> This sounded like an intriguing approach. Sadly MS's VM doesn't run on Vista
> Home "Premium". But I’ll look into further.

Yes, it will work.... it's not "supported".

Posted by Brandon LeBlanc, MVP;

On the download page for Virtual PC 2007, it specifically says which SKU's of Windows Vista it
supports: Business; Enterprise; and Ultimate.

Also: when installing on a unsupported SKU like Home Premium, you will get a warning letting
you know you are attempting to install on a unsupported SKU. See screenshot:
http://www.mstechtoday.com/images/vpc-warning.jpg

If you choose to proceed installing on a unsupported SKU, Microsoft or any other software
company can't be held accountable. There is enough warnings in place to make you aware that
Virtual PC 2007 is not supported on Home Premium. That being said, installing Virtual PC 2007
shouldn't crash your PC causing you to reinstall the OS. You may have other problems going on
there.

In regards to the fact that Virtual PC 2007 does not support installation on Home Premium, I
suggest leaving that feedback on Virtual PC Guy's blog:

http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/



-Michael

> "Charlie Tame" wrote to JJ:
>
>> Actually JJ it might be a good idea to try the MS virtual machine and
>> install XP as guest if the original XP CD is available with key...
>

 

[mayayana]

> It
> was the last straw in deciding I needed a new PC because for a while I was
> thinking of looking for a cheap IDE HD... just enough to keep my old PC
alive
> long enough until the new AMD quad cores came out. But if I could not be
sure
> I could install XP on it, I didnâ?Tt want to get stuck with an obsolete
IDE
> drive I could probably not return.
>

So if you try to install XP on the new machine now
you may risk losing the Vista install? I can see how that
might be a little tricky. If you decide to try, though,
you can get an IDE disk for abot $50-70, allowing you
to leave the Vista hard disk intact, just in case. I'm not
so sure that IDE is obslete. If I were buying a disk now
I'd buy IDE for compatibility. And I just built a new box for
myself about a year ago, with a motherboard that had
sockets for IDE as well as SATA plugs. I'm not
certain, buy I would guess that most motherboards
will have both IDE amd SATA for some time to come.
(For that matter, I haven't even seen a motherboard
without a floppy drive yet. Many OEMs are too cheap
to put them in, but the socket for it is usually still there.)

 

[Richard Urban]

If older programs are not written (or updated) up to current security
standards then the older programs can not be expected to function. That is
just the way it is. There are many older programs that have security holes
large enough to drive a dump truck through.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:8293D5FA-595D-4D12-9061-AAFA2FFD2C82@microsoft.com...
> "John" wrote:
>> Technology is always changing. Technology is changing for the better.
>>
>> If you accept those two assumptions then it's impossible for any company,
>> be
>> it Intel or Microsoft, to always have a more technologically advanced
>> product that works with older technologies.
>
> Uh? I seem to recall that once MS seemed pretty intent on preserving
> backward compatibility, and even includes a backward compatibility mode in
> XP
> and Vista.... not that it's worked yet with anything in Vista. And I also
> seem to recall that aside from Itatium, Intel seems pretty intent on
> preserving the X86 architecture even going into its quad core chips.
> Without
> a dedicated effort for backward compatibility MS leaves itself open to
> consumers/businesses jumping ship… breaking out of the proprietary
> vendor-lock.
>
> Making radical changes in an OS isn't like Shick coming up with a new
> razor
> blade that won't fit their old ones. When we're talking about changes in
> an
> OS we can’t just dismiss all the hundreds of billions consumers and
> businesses have invested in hardware and software dependent on that OS.
> Yet
> that seems to be what you’re saying is perfectly acceptable.
>

 

[Mrs. Ron O'Brien]

"Alias" wrote in message
news:ha5fun$pjf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I don't know, you do a pretty good job at being a *perfect* idiot.
>
> Alias

Again you are wrong. You are the perfect IDIOT. Who else would try and
convert Vista users over to that INFERIOR Ubuntu?

Alias the Ubuntu Marketing Department. IDIOT.

 

[Mrs. Ron O'Brien]

"Alias is aka Linux's Josephine Baker" wrote in
message news:OkMSm74QKHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> Alias wrote:
>
>
>
> Come on Alias you Linux pole dance and do your Linux pole dancer countdown
> routine. How about a little entertainment?

If Alias uses two poles does that make him Bi-Polar?