"Chris_Pratley \(MS said:
Believe it or not, we do this sort of thing
to try to avoid problems for customers, not because it is an evil plot.
Then perhaps it is just a subtle difference in your mind set that even
you don't notice. Other vendors know they can't get away with just
ensuring compatibility with only the latest version of their OWN
products. So they pick a standard or two and try to make sure their
software meets the standards. Then they say that their software will work
with any other software that meets the standard so the customer has a
choice. Not everyone is entirely successful, of course, but they do seem
to try. Especially, e-gads, the open-source and shareware developers.
They know that their software will live or die based solely on it's own
merits rather than marketing muscle or customer lock-in. Those programs
that play the best with others rise to the top and those that don't get
fixed or die lingering deaths.
Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to go with the notion that everyone
either has or should have the latest version of EVERY other Microsoft
product installed on either the desktop or an attached server. (I know
you have the friend that worked really hard to ensure compatibility with
Windows 95. But even with all his hard work I didn't expect all the old
Win 3.11 stuff to work with it. I considered Win 95 to be a NEW
standard.) Anyway, I am talking about all the standards that have been
developed since then. Things like MAPI, TAPI, HTML, XML, SOAP, etc.
Microsoft always embraces and EXTENDS. The problem seems to be that they
never extend in the same direction twice. So, to get your programs to
work together you actually have to go to more work than you would have
had you stuck to the standard. If you competed on how well you could do
WITHIN the standard and how well you played with others rather than
creating lock-in at every turn (whether inadvertently or intentional) I
think you would have a much better product and far fewer legal battles.
Now, personally, I just think it is an evil plot and you are merely an
unwitting coconspirator. But I put forth these theories just to give you
the benefit of the doubt. ;^)
...the old apps had already shipped and so could not be modified...
It's done all the time. It's called a patch. Granted, patches can only
change so much and a patch of this nature should only be used by people
who need this feature but it is doable.
Really, all of your explanations are making it sound as if the real
problem isn't an evil plot but a conspiracy of errors and the mind set
that it's an all Microsoft all the time world. The first can't be fixed
retroactively but it can be fixed for the future if Microsoft can just
get over the mind set problem. Rather than trying to crush open source,
you should just beat them at their own game.
- In some cases, I might agree with