will old filepro work on XP computer

[Fairlight]

With neither thought nor caution, Kenneth Brody blurted:
> 
> The first are the "we upgrade our hardware regularly, and this ancient
> version of filePro has been moved a dozen times to new systems, but
> now I'm having a problem".  These are the people I have trouble
> understanding the logic behind not upgrading the software as well.
> They spend money like water on the hardware, but think that software
> should come with free support and upgrades forever.

Not necessarily.  They bought software, they may not need any new
"features" available in later versions (if it ain't broke, don't fix it),
and they just need the software that's been running for 20 years to keep
running the way it always has--just on new hardware.

I can see their rationale there.  It falls down when you consider that
porting the software to the newer OS running on that newer hardware cost a
mint in development and the new features came with it (who ports a 20 year
old version?).

But that is likely their rationale.  They made an investment in something
-whenever-, and they expect it to keep working as it has for whatever
period of time.  The software industry being what it is, they don't have
an expected lifetime as you would with a physical device.  It's code...it
either works or it doesn't.  They don't expect to have to pay to get the
exact same thing they already paid for and that has been running just fine
for 20 years, when they're not going to be doing anything new with it.  And
aside from the development/porting costs, I think that's a reasonable
expectation by and large.  Again though, it's a case of, "Hardware wears
out, this is a known fact.  The bytes in your software don't."  But they're
overlooking porting costs, and the fact that, like it or not, that comes
with the porting whether you need it or not.

-Support- for something that old should -not- be free.  :)  If they think
that, they're just nuts.

One of the things I kind of both hate and like about the linux dists is
that the major vendors do more or less have a stated expected lifetime.  It
constrains you in that you can't run a stable system and have it supported
for the lifetime of the hardware, but it also erases that blurry line that
a lot of people seem to walk.  And I can see it--in OSS software, where
significant advances are made.  How much can they possibly add to Office
that makes a forced upgrade worth it every few years?  There are only so
many things a word processor can and should do.  Holding people ransom for
new features that are there just to get more revenue but add no real
intrinsic worth just isn't right.  True, a company can only support so many
releases before having to roll off old ones; but how many of those new
versions are really necessary in some markets?  Look at WinZip.  They keep
adding things that are useless for 99% of users...most of which just zip
and unzip files.  They're up to 10.0 last time I bought it.  Some things
get upgraded just to get upgraded.  I'm pretty confident that is an
accurate statement.

> The second are the "we've been running this ancient version of filePro
> on this ancient computer, and we finally replaced it, but only because
> the hardware was about to die" people.  At least I can understand that
> some of these people simply aren't in the position to spend the money
> to upgrade both the hardware and software at the same time.

I have actually seen places like that.  And generally they're small places
that don't even know what they're running for the most part, their solution
worked so well that the developer wasn't missed when they long since
stopped contacting them because there was no need...  And then things
break.

> Note that we recently had someone enquire about getting their filePro
> data from their old Tandy Xenix system to an XP box.  Sometimes, you
> can take "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" to the extreme.

Ouch.  :)

mark->