On 2/22/20 3:28 PM, Ron wrote:
> On 2/22/20 5:12 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> On 2/22/20 2:39 PM, Andrus wrote:
> [snip]
>> This is a different issue and involves a product VFP that is EOL 5-10
>> years depending on support package. I'm going to say the hand writing
>> is on the wall and it is time to upgrade software.
>
> I don't know where you work, but where I work, old programs where the
> source code disappeared ages ago, but have worked reliably for 15+ years
> is distressingly common.
I see the same thing. In the end it comes down to whether you want to
pay the price one workaround at a time or by moving forward to something
you don't have to cross your fingers everytime you start it.
>
> Breaking userland backwards compatibility is a mortal sin, and one of
> the reasons that MS software is so popular is that they work so hard to
> *not* break userland backwards compatibility.
That is not true. I have a programs that have to run on old versions of
Windows as they no longer run reliably or at all on newer Windows
versions and the client does not want to upgrade/change the program. And
no, compatibility mode is not the answer.
>
> --
> Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
