People like you grouse and complain endlessly

Hi Paul.

Something you didn't touch on in your article but which is, I think, worth considering...

While the move is likely to force Windows 95/98/Me users to upgrade, I'll bet you a beer it will also prevent CodeWeavers CrossOver users from running Office 11 under Linux. And this is likely, in my opinion, Microsoft's true agenda.

God forbid anyone daring to run Microsoft's software on a non-Microsoft Operating System, after all...

Best regards.
Chris Halsall

Subject: Office 11 won't work with any old Windows

"We understand that this decision won't be popular among all of our customers, but it allows us to create a better and more stable product."

That, from a company whose favorite marketing phrase is, "Our customers tell us..."

The tactic of limiting Office 11 sales may well be the "end of Microsoft" as a dominant force.

I do not understand why Microsoft didn't simply change file formats between Office 97, 2000, and XP. That, more than anything, would force people to upgrade due to peer pressure. That gave time to alternative developers -- AbiWord, OpenOffice, etc -- to refine their products to the point where Office again has competition.

(I have both Word and OpenOffice on my computes; my kids prefer OpenOffice.)

Regards,
Ralph Grabowski
www.upfrontezine.com

Subject: Office 11 won't work with any old Windows

For Microsoft, insecure means "user may run unregistered copies of our software", not, as would be expected, "not safe user operation".

You and everyone will start to see more and more of these lexical mallabarisms with words like security and trust coming from Microsoft, Intel and companies that want to take the control of our systems from our own hands.

Rodrigo

Subject: Office 11 won't work with any old Windows

Well, I read your diatribe twice but I still cannot believe it.

Microsoft has been telling the corporate world for years to use the NT-type platform for security reasons. Windows 9x, including Me, is for the home user, and now with "always-on" Internet connections, those products really aren't suitable any longer. It's a shame that the corporate world has almost always been too short-sighted and cheap to purchase the right OS for their desktops. Thirty thousand Windows 95 platforms at a major company seriously concerned about security sounds like a bad, bad decision on someone's part, but it's easier and safer to blame Microsoft, isn't it?

And as far as interoperability goes, give me and the rest of the computing world a break. People like you grouse and complain endlessly about security issues, backwards-compatibility, ad infinitum, but don't want Microsoft actually to do anything about it if it means you have to move into the 21st century with the rest of us, ie, spend some money. All I really understood from your article was that you don't want to purchase anything regardless of the potential benefits. You sound like those IT managers who refuse to plug security leaks (whether it's Windows, Linux or Unix) because "it's too confusing and expensive."

I suppose you feel the same way about Apple software that won't run on versions of the OS less than X, right? Right?

Very truly yours,
Paul Seid