>Jim, you've been around long enough to know that the original intention of the upgrade price was to rewared those who supported the company in the past; not to restrict the value of the product. This changes all that in the interest of getting more money.
>
>Allan,
>
>Yeah I've been around for awhile. I certainly know that MS is pretty good at making profits which isn't a sin. My comments were the result of thinking about the EULA in question after reading some of this thread. It just seemed to make sense that if I want to used both versions then I should buy both versions, if I use the older version to get a less expensive upgrade then it seems pretty logical that I would no longer have a valid license to the older version.

It shows just how subtle the change has become. Once upon a time, it was not a question of 'using the older version to get an upgrade', which sounds customer driven. The upgrade system was software company driven: created and offered by the software maker as a 'reward' and an incentive to continue the support, and in order to receive that reward, one would only need to show that he/she was a previous supporter of the company.

That's all gone now. no more 'thanks for the years of support', no more incentive to upgrade (regardless that it's MS's position that this represents such an incentive); now it's just grab you by the waist, turn you upside down, and shake.

I don't honestly have a problem with MS's questing after money. I really don't. I just dislike being treated as a speed bump in that quest rather than an appreciated contributor to it.

Alan