> Many find the new UI changes hard to learn and unnecessary. Sue wasn't talking about the UI. She was talking about the need to "buy new software whenever MS changes its mind", and that's what I was responding to.
> There could have been changes made that don't stop quite > as many programs from working. Or compatibility modes that > trick the old software into thinking it is doing something > unsafe, but it really isn't. MS did both of these. You can run any program in compatibility mode for WinXP, Server 2003, Win2K, WinNT4, Win98/ME, or Win95. And behind the scenes Vista does stuff to help, like quietly storing data that software tries to put in Program Files somewhere else. But compatibility can only go so far, and a small number of particularly egregious programs, most of which are doing things that MS said not to do for years, just won't work. > Again, it depends. Largely, it seems that MS felt as you do - who > cares how many old programs are broken. I didn't say anything like that. In fact, I said that MS had bent over backwards to maintain as much compatibility as they could while still making the changes that were needed to improve security. > But not every software vendor has the resources to make the kinds > of changes that MS wants for Vista. You're assuming that they are big changes, but they are not. I've been through this (I'm a professional developer), and the modifications that a vendor might HAVE to make are just not that big of a deal. It's not like the software needs to be rewritten. If a program needs sweeping changes to run under Vista, then it is a bad program and I, for one, would not want to use it. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
