What Does it Mean Microsoft No Longer Supports VB?
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Karl E. Peterson on 26 Jan 2010 12:23 jim evans pretended : > Exactly what does it mean that MS no longer supports Visual Basic? > Does it mean the runtime module will not longer work on the Windows > Operating System? Does it mean the development environment will no > longer work in Windows. What? Microsoft's Support for VB6 Users Remains a Disappointment -- Visual Studio Magazine http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2009/10/27/microsoft-vb6-support-strategy.aspx -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: David Kaye on 26 Jan 2010 15:31 "MikeD" <nobody(a)nowhere.edu> wrote: >In a nutshell, it just means you're on your own. If you have problems, MS >won't help. It also means it's unlikely any remaining bugs in either the >runtime or the IDE will never get fixed because there will be no more >service packs for it. Still, 10 years of support for a product they've wanted to kick under the bus for years wasn't such a bad deal.
From: Paul Clement on 27 Jan 2010 08:29 On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:23:22 -0800, Karl E. Peterson <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote: � jim evans pretended : � > Exactly what does it mean that MS no longer supports Visual Basic? � > Does it mean the runtime module will not longer work on the Windows � > Operating System? Does it mean the development environment will no � > longer work in Windows. What? � � Microsoft's Support for VB6 Users Remains a Disappointment -- Visual � Studio Magazine � http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2009/10/27/microsoft-vb6-support-strategy.aspx Whattya mean a disappointment? It just works! Paul ~~~~ Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
From: mayayana on 27 Jan 2010 10:23 > > Microsoft's Support for VB6 Users Remains a Disappointment -- Visual > Studio Magazine > http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2009/10/27/microsoft-vb6-support-st rategy.aspx > ------------------ "Until the Visual Fred debacle, Microsoft had never rendered any of their customer's data unusable. Not once. ....I haven't heard any reason yet to consider letting them do it again. Have you?" ------------------ What you say may be right, but at this point it seems to be company policy to kill all products as soon as possible in order to sell the next one. They could still support Win9x and 2000, charging for support calls. People are still using those products. But even passive support is systematically eliminated. (A lot of documentation for downloads, API calls, etc.. has been changed to falsely claim that XP+ is required.) They'll try to kill XP at the earliest possible opportunity. Yesterday I saw an article detailing how people using Office 2003 might have a hard time with the hardware requirements for Office 2010. (Hardware requirements for an office suite!) It's odd that it doesn't occur to people at MS that they need decent new product instead of bloated, fashion-chasing, restrictive spyware. If a car dealer has to sell new cars by sneaking around at night putting sugar in gas tanks....at some point he should start to realize that his business model is not so hot, and begin to wonder what's the matter with the new cars. :)
From: Karl E. Peterson on 27 Jan 2010 15:15
mayayana explained : >> >> Microsoft's Support for VB6 Users Remains a Disappointment -- Visual >> Studio Magazine >> > http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2009/10/27/microsoft-vb6-support-st > rategy.aspx >> > ------------------ > "Until the Visual Fred debacle, Microsoft had never rendered any of their > customer's data unusable. Not once. ....I haven't heard any reason yet to > consider letting them do it again. Have you?" > ------------------ > > What you say may be right, but at this point it > seems to be company policy to kill all products > as soon as possible in order to sell the next one. I can almost understand that. Killing products to promote a new one is about the only viable business strategy they have. Office, afterall, achieved "Good Enough" eight or ten years ago. But killing *data* - whoa! - that's a whole 'nother story!!! Can you even *imagine* if they rendered DOC or XLS files unusable??? They're outta business, that day. > They could still support Win9x and 2000, charging > for support calls. People are still using those products. > But even passive support is systematically eliminated. > (A lot of documentation for downloads, API calls, etc.. > has been changed to falsely claim that XP+ is required.) Yeah, that's just ugly, I agree. > They'll try to kill XP at the earliest possible opportunity. I think it would've been dead by now, if it weren't for the rise of netbooks and the debacle that was Vista. > Yesterday I saw an article detailing how people using > Office 2003 might have a hard time with the hardware > requirements for Office 2010. (Hardware requirements > for an office suite!) I'd be curious to see that, if you can dredge it back up. > It's odd that it doesn't occur to people at MS > that they need decent new product instead of > bloated, fashion-chasing, restrictive spyware. If a car > dealer has to sell new cars by sneaking around at night > putting sugar in gas tanks....at some point he should > start to realize that his business model is not so > hot, and begin to wonder what's the matter with the > new cars. :) The big difference is, cars *do* wear out. Bits never die. Naturally. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org |