Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Andrew Phillips <aphillips AT buildscape.com>]

From what I understand what they're talking about is they feel they
would be blamed if a they were required to sell Windows 95 and it had a
security breach. They can't be expected to keep up on products from 7
years about and there arguments make complete sense to me. Do you see
the government doing this to Adobe or Macromedia? You might say "Well
Apache supports over 9 versions of its software" but the big difference
is Apache isn't trying to make money, Microsoft is.

Supporting old Software is difficult, not only do you need developers
but you need phone support, QA, managers, etc... There is no reason they
should have to do this. Now if The States mean supporting Windows 2000,
Windows ME, Windows XP all at the same time, they're doing that already.
They just phase them out over time, and its not like its at the drop of
the hat, you can find the information out on the website years in
advance. If you don't like it, don't use the product.

-Andrew
------------------------
Andrew Phillips
Applications Developer
aphillips AT buildscape.com
(919) 484-9843 x 246
http://www.buildscape.com

On Tue, 2002-04-23 at 14:05, thomas AT tbeckett.com wrote:
> I think you're being unnecessarily harsh on Microsoft.  I mean, they may
> well have used aveterinarian with a flashlight and not a doctor.
> 
> TaB
> 
> 
> > Good Lord, where is MS
> coming up with this stuff, and did they need a
> > doctor with a flashlight to find it?
> >
> >
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/04/23/microsoft.antitrust.ap/index.html