Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:53:43 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Microsoft: No plans to release public Vista app-compat checklist
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| If you were wondering when Microsoft plans to publish an official
>>| list of applications that don't work well with Windows Vista, the
>>| answer is never.
>> `----
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=143
>>
>> How convenient. Will disinformed people throw money at an O/S that cannot
>> be adopted before falling back onto XP as in the story below? Microsoft
>> tries to maximise its profits and hide information that hurts it while
>> helping its cusotmers a great deal.
>
> Yes, how convenient... that you didn't bother to quote (or apparently even
> read) the rest of article that explains that Microsoft is offering free
> tools to download to check your applications compatibility BEFORE you buy
> Vista.
>
> Now, why would you make the comment you did when the article clearly
> addresses your "concern"?
>
Probably because the majority of *standard* users will not see or know of
those tools until after they have installed Vista or bought a machine with
it on.
Then they will get out their boxes with MS Works, MS Office, Publisher, a
graphics package, whatever and find that the cost of Vista wasn't $199 at
all, it actually costs $199 + price of office + price of publisher + price
of what ever other software they already paid for but needs replacing to
run on the new computer.
Could MS have allowed backwards compatibility?
If the answer is Yes then Vista is a tool for ripping off MS's own customers
for more money, because they deliberately forced a repurchase of
application software.
If the answer is No they should have released Vista not as the next MS Win
distro, but as a new distro and made it public that it was not compatible
with XP applications.
So easer answer is still in ripoff territory.
|
|
