SNIP
>
>If the user wants to run the old apps - fine. Tell them they can run them to their hearts content until they run out of sources for old hardware and OS's.
>
>Unless you gueranteed them forward HW and OS compatibility for more than a decade and a half, the problem is not yours.

That's one point-of-view. But I disagree with it.

As I wander about in day-to-day life I continue to be amazed at how many 'green screen styled' applications I see in use. Their users must have ***some*** reason that makes sense to them for continuing to use them. Maybe it has to do with "all the functionality they need" and the fact that they're not computer people and view the system they use as a tool just like a stapler or a fridge or a hammer. Why would they be convinced differently... or how much effort would be required to get them to do so???

Even if "forward compatibility" was not part of the "contract", keeping a happy customer *IS* part of any "contract". Word-of-mouth recommendations could result in sales - even of the newer/fancier VFP version.

Microsoft goes a distance to retain backward compatibility. They've been less so in more recent times and in my opinion that is a huge MISTAKE.
At the very least Microsoft HAS TO recognize that there are thousands of users of OLDER APPLICATIONS out there that NEED some kind of capability to upgrade their hardware without having to upgrade their software (tools) too. It's only good common business sense.

You and I make our money on the latest and greatest, so we don't come close to seeing it the way a USER does. When a user's 6 year old system just (finally) dies he should not be put into a position that may lose him his business. Today many are in jeopary of facing exactly that. And it's simply WRONG. When a user's fridge gives out he just goes out and gets a new one and continues on his merry way. To expect the same for a computer application is perfectly natural as I see it.

cheers