16.559 success forgets: premature senescence of equipment

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty ) (willard@mccarty.me.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 03:03:03 EST

  • Next message: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty ): "16.560 wireless"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 16, No. 559.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                         Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu

             Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 08:01:50 +0000
             From: Norman Hinton <hinton@springnet1.com>
             Subject: Re: 16.558 success forgets: premature senescence of equipment

    Well, this may work some of the time, but for much software, the
    manufacturers prevent you from hanging on to material -- I just tried to
    get an answer from a vendor about some 3-years-old OCR software, and was
    told that it is now regarded as "classic" and that they would no longer
    answer questions about it. Then they offered me an upgrade for $79.95 plus

    This is most annoying but of course I had very little choice. I once
    ignored a similar ploy from Norton and within a week I was wiped out by a
    virus I could not get a defense against unless I paid $99.00 for the
    'upgrade'. It gets one's attention.

    >It would serve most of us well to really consider if we do need to
    >"updgrade" and then decide if compatibility is really an issue. Microsoft
    >makes most of its sales on this fear of incompatibility, but often this is
    >an unwarranted fear. Most word processors do the trick for the documents I
    >need to produce, and they all save in text and RTF format, so I stick with
    >my trusty BBEdit. But it is really hard to convince some people that they
    >wont be "behind the curve" if they don't upgrade.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 03:05:57 EST