"Peter McMurray" wrote:
> Two
>points here, Microsoft has provided a very good fix and the questions
vanish
>for well formed programs.
This is why I prefer to wait for the platform to mature. It probably
will. I just don't want to be a guinea pig in the process. Everyone
will disagree as to the degree of pain involved with conflicting
backup types and annoying messages, my point is that I've avoided all
of that simply by not installing because it's not really necessary.
It's not "no pain, no gain", it's "no pain... Hey, No Pain!"
>In Summary, whatever the issues ignoring them is not an option. As
>programmers we probably do not need most of them - I personally program
>happily on a 10 year old Windows 98 machine and hate the thought of
spending
>more money - but the market is what people are buying now and we have to
get
>with it.
This is the ironic aspect of your argument. Here you are writing code
on a 10 year old system, and how many times have we heard about people
happily running on systems twice that age? You're saying end-users
don't want to run on older systems, and I'm arguing in favor of not
going with the latest fad.
In the immortal words of Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes...
"It's a MAD HOUSE!!!!!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWv53OJ-ydI
And as far as mixed environments, what's wrong with putting D3NT on XP
and putting it in a corner where users never need to look at it? Put
it on a laptop and push it under a desk. Put XP on a virtual on top
of Vista, running in the background. The only connectivity users need
is telnet. What's the deal with having a different operating system
in the office when they never, ever need to see it?
T
|
