What Does it Mean Microsoft No Longer Supports VB?
in [Visual Basic]
|
From: Karl E. Peterson on 28 Jan 2010 16:26 Phill W. pretended : > On 27/01/2010 20:15, Karl E. Peterson wrote: > >> I can almost understand that. Killing products to promote a new one is >> about the only viable business strategy they have. Office, after all, >> 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. > > But Karl; it's *already happened* > > A /Service Pack/ to Office 2003 locked us all out of our Word 2.* files and a > whole host of other types just because they were "insecure". I wasn't even aware of that, but it only serves to amplify my point. Never before had they even thought of doing that. Obviously, given your story of a later event, what they got away with doing to us emboldened them to do it to others in the future. (Not that a few of us weren't quoting Niem�ller at the time!) > It wasn't just that you couldn't /save/ these formats any more, which would > have been palatable; you simply you couldn't /open/ them! Whole swathes of > corporate assets wiped out at a stroke. Anyone else would have slammed with > Damages charges; not so Our Friends in Redmond. They had precedent on their side, afterall! -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: MM on 29 Jan 2010 03:11 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:15:02 -0700, "Tony Toews [MVP]" <ttoews(a)telusplanet.net> wrote: >MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>Notwithstanding rust, which would be caused by bad >>garaging procedures, > >Bad garaging experience? Could you explain that a bit more? Those >parts of Canada which have a lot of salt dumped on the roads because >of snow removal techniques would surely like to know the answer. Underseal. One of my first jobs as a rooky apprentice aged 15 was to apply it to the underside of new vehicles prior to delivery. It was an extremely messy job, but the effect was very long-lasting. MM
From: MM on 29 Jan 2010 03:14 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:48 -0600, "Ralph" <nt_consulting64(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Tony Toews [MVP] wrote: >> MM <kylix_is(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Notwithstanding rust, which would be caused by bad >>> garaging procedures, >> >> Bad garaging experience? Could you explain that a bit more? Those >> parts of Canada which have a lot of salt dumped on the roads because >> of snow removal techniques would surely like to know the answer. >> > >Perhaps he means that vehicles, top and bottom, should be spray-washed with >fresh water and then forced-air dried as a part of the "garaging" process? >Or maybe not having a garage? > >In any case it seems everything except rust can be blamed on evil >Capitalists. Rust apparently is still the responsibility of the owner. Of course it's the owner's responsibility! No-one is forcing them to drive on salt-strewn roads. And surely, once the raininy season starts again, the salt will be diluted and eventually washed away. Anyway, this is not a problem that Britain faces as we run out of salt quite soon after the first snowflake has fallen. MM
From: Dee Earley on 29 Jan 2010 06:50 On 28/01/2010 10:03, MM wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:15:29 -0800, Karl E. Peterson<karl(a)exmvps.org> > wrote: > >> The big difference is, cars *do* wear out. > > Nope. Even that statement is not necessarily true. Cars can be > repaired. Most *every*thing can be repaired if it was designed right > in the first place. Notwithstanding rust, which would be caused by bad > garaging procedures, everything in a car can be repaired or, if > capitalist "planned obsolescence" has used funny-headed screws, > replaced as a module. Don't forget I was a fitter once and I know. But you do need to go to the right place and the manufacturer can only help at a premium... :) -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems
From: MM on 29 Jan 2010 08:36
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:50:00 +0000, Dee Earley <dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk> wrote: >On 28/01/2010 10:03, MM wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:15:29 -0800, Karl E. Peterson<karl(a)exmvps.org> >> wrote: >> >>> The big difference is, cars *do* wear out. >> >> Nope. Even that statement is not necessarily true. Cars can be >> repaired. Most *every*thing can be repaired if it was designed right >> in the first place. Notwithstanding rust, which would be caused by bad >> garaging procedures, everything in a car can be repaired or, if >> capitalist "planned obsolescence" has used funny-headed screws, >> replaced as a module. Don't forget I was a fitter once and I know. > >But you do need to go to the right place and the manufacturer can only >help at a premium... :) Or you can DIY, which is what many people do. MM |