At 03:31 PM 5/24/2006, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
>But WHY do you want or NEED to run 6 year old software on a modern
>computer??
I was trying to stay out of this slugfest, but I find myself pulled in. <g>
Sometimes old software runs just fine, and there's no need to spend
money on an updated UI and new features I don't need. (I'm still
happily running Office 2000 -- a 6 year old program -- because none
of the newer versions have convinced me that they can make my life
easier.) Sometimes old software never gets updated. My father uses a
DOS billing program under WinXP because it does *exactly* what he needs.
>I just don't get the mentality of people who want to run old software on
>new hardware. Did bitch and moan when your 8 track tapes couldn't be
>played anymore? Or when those LPs couldn't be played in your CD player?
I didn't expect to be able to play LPs on a CD player, but I also
didn't run out and buy CD versions of all my LPs. I still have (and play) LPs.
>I think that if you buy a program, and use it, and then buy new
>hardware, you'd want to update all your programs to take advantage of
>the new hardware.
Again, that's far too general a statement. In what way does Office
2003 make better use of my new computer than Office 2000? In fact,
since Office 2000 was designed for slower hardware, I would argue
that it actually runs *better* on my new machine than Office 2003,
which *expects* the faster processor, more RAM, etc.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
