On 25 May 2006 at 10:17, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > dc wrote: > > A-NO-NE Music écrit: > >> No software is responsible to support future unknown > >> platform. > > > > Seems to me it's the other way around: the platform should support > > the software, new or old. Your logic completely escapes me. > > > > Andrew's post is completely on the mark and explains why any > > professional user of Finale needs the best backward compatibility > > possible. And this without keeping as many machines as versions of > > Finale... > > > But that kind of "logic" is why Microsoft is having such problems.
What problems are you referring to there? The delays in the release of Longhorn/Vista? Those are almost all due to problems implementing *new* technologies, not in supporting the older software, so I can't imagine that would be what you're referring to. > There has to be a point where you tell the users "Look, on these NEW > computers, your old software might not run. In fact, it probably > won't. We're sorry. We recommend keeping whatever you have around to > use the older software if you need to." But Microsoft makes no claims that it will support all software forever. But they design their OS's so that programs that don't depend on undocumented or deprecated methods of accomplishing tasks will continue to run as long as the APIs they are written to are supported in MS's OS's. > To me, it seems absolutely insane to keep support for old programs. I think the key part of this comment is in the opening clause. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
