Because they've often done so at MS's request. Win32 is not the most feature-stable API out there (DirectX on the other hand is better for that)
-Adam Bob W wrote: > 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
