INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER Bookmark this page

  
Display: Sort:
The suspicious death of XP support | 34 comments (34 topical) | Post A Comment
How is the end user supposed to know?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by partan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

In this case, MS should have some mention of incompatibilities that can occur with other software and hardware vendors.  Even if it's just a link to that company's solution.  This way, the end user doesn't have to determine what vendor's software is actually causing the problem.  If someone applies a patch for Windows and loses his/her Internet connection, what is he/she most likely going to do?  Look to MS for a solution.  Why?  Because the MS patch was the last thing applied.  Maybe a vendor blog could be hosted by MS for this purpose?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Mention incompatibilities?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by modcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:20:42 AM PDT

Only if you expect MS to do test the compatibility of all third party apps with all of their updates - which I've said is not their responsibility as long as they make the updates available to developers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM PDT

"Only if you expect MS to do test the compatibility of all third party apps with all of their updates"

And, of course, MS kinda sorta does exactly that, by pushing it on the user base. All he's asking is that if MS starts to get widespread reports of problems with a particular app, that they note that on their web site (where it will be found!) as a known compatibility issue.

With respect to earlier postings, while it's true that MS can't be expected to test with all the software people might use, nor can software vendors be expected to test with MS patches that don't even exist yet.

Ultimately, there are things that both sides can do to avoid headaches.

Software vendors can code to the specifications and APIs, avoiding doing anything dodgy (say, as an optimization) or using undocumented protocols.

MS, meanwhile, can a) document all such APIs and specifications clearly, and b) not break compatibility with them with a patch or service pack unless it's absolutely necessary to plug a security hole.

MS could also stand to fix plain old ordinary non-security-hole bugs once in a while. For instance, Explorer and the picture/fax previewer in XP STILL leak memory, especially when browsing lots of image directories and previewing lots of the images, even after thirteen years, Win98's release, WinME's release, WinXP's release, and two XP service packs. I'm guessing they still leak memory after you install SP3. :P


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



The suspicious death of XP support | 34 comments (34 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:

Menu
· create account
· faq
· search

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

 HOME  NEWS  COLUMNS  BLOGS  PODCASTS  TECHNOLOGIES  TEST CENTER  EVENTS  CAREERS  IT EXEC-CONNECT   About Awards Contact Us 

Copyright © 2006, Reprints, Permissions, Licensing, IDG Network, Privacy Policy.
All Rights reserved. InfoWorld is a leading publisher of technology information and product reviews on topics including viruses,
phishing, worms, firewalls, security, servers, storage, networking, wireless, databases, and web services.

 ComputerWorld :: LinuxWorld :: Network World :: CIO :: PC World :: Darwin :: CMO :: CSO
IT Careers :: JavaWorld :: Macworld :: Mac Central :: Playlist :: GamePro :: GameStar :: Gamerhelp
ITWorld Canada :: Computerwoche :: Techworld UK :: tecChannel :: IDG.se :: IDG.no :: IDG.pl

create account | faq | search