I don't see how that's Microsoft's fault. If the application writers tie their code into a specific version of the operating system in that way so that it's not reasonably future-proof, how can that be MS's fault? Where I work we have hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds invested in software and there are very specific instructions to our software developers to write code that has a reasonable chance of surviving operating system & suchlike upgrades. If they don't we don't run around blaming Microsoft or Oracle or IBM, we slap the application writers.
-- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Thibouille > Sent: 09 February 2007 14:02 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Trying to buy the LightRoom > > Indeed, M$ implemented a better check against pirates but sp2 also > inviolves some compatibility problems with a couple softwares, not > many but some which *may* be critical for some. Here's an example: > > My parents have/had (depends on their mind) the habits of using a > software which is Weihgt Watrcher's something (don't know the exact > name in English) which stubbornely refuses to run under SP2. It shows > in fact a bug running Authorware (on which it is based) from > Macromedia (I think... RIP) and the runtime tells you to go to hell. > It works perfectly well under XP RTM and XP SP1. > Seems stupid but for them, it is defenitely critical and so I never > updated their computer to SP2. > > Keep in mind you can uninstall it (SP2 I mean), anyway but you should > be careful, that's all. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
