John Farrell wrote:

> I bought Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 which is XP compatible. ...
> I was obliged to purchase the XP compatible version [of Encore].
>
> Bill Gates has a lot to answer for; no wonder he has such a huge
> house surrounded by cash-stuffed hangars.

It's not Bill Gates.  It's not even software.  It's progress in
technology -- and, on the whole, I'd argue it's good so.

Engineers go miles and miles to stay upwards compatible, but at some
point, the cost of that upwards compatibility is simply too much.
Your DOS programs ran on Windows 3.11 and Windows 9X; but now, it's
over.  Win 3.11 programs "perished" much faster, in most cases.  Old
auto radios for 6-volts, and even newer ones, but with older plugs
and sockets they won't fit into new cars.  8-inch floppy disks, 5-1/4"
floppies, and now even 3-1/2" floppies were, one after the other,
phased out.  And you will not find an 8-inch drive which is compatible
with Win XP and even most newer Unix systems.  (Someone will tell me
the opposite -- I'm ready to learn here :-) ); and I suspect the same
is true for 5-1/4" drives.

The big question with such "incompatibility" decisions is not
whether you do it but when you do it, whom you harm, and who benefits.
Bill Gates gets nothing from Encore or Cakewalk sales, so he's not
interested in breaking the compatibility there.  However, he/Microsoft
earns much from a cleaner software architecture inside Windows (because
of substantially dropping development costs), so Microsoft actually
does have an interest that old interfaces are phased out.  They have
to weigh in the interest of the gamers and others who want to run
their old software..., but on the whole, I'd say the upgrade costs
for software are "about in relation" to the costs for other updates
(hardware, knowledge!) and the overall costs of operating software
(also for a private person ...).

Okay -- so much to try to present a balanced view, from a professional
software architect and software project manager. :-)  On the other hand,
I also grumble (and curse) when I have to upgrade a perfectly running
piece of software because of some other decision (of mine!) which
seemed unrelated (e.g., going to XP).  However, I just know that such
decisions in complex technical systems _are_ linked with each other --
we live with that.

Regards
Harald M. Mueller