Richard,
Upon reflection I can see that I mistook your meaning. Regardless of
anyone's opinion about Vista and how it affects all of us, Liberty
BASIC does need an update, and there is certainly no disputing that.
I want to dispel the perception that Liberty BASIC will not be
updated. In fact we are going to release a Vista-targeted update in
the next couple of months and we will be asking for beta testers soon.
Thanks,
-Carl Gundel
http://www.libertybasic.com
http://www.runbasic.com
On Jan 6, 5:49=A0pm, "n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 7:17=A0pm, "ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ca...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> > And, you make it sound like Liberty BASIC doesn't run on Vista.
>
> The entire LB Help system "doesn't run on Vista", by which I mean it
> relies on WinHelp which is not supplied with Vista and is deprecated
> on that platform. =A0Yes, I know the end-user can download a patch to
> enable that feature (something Microsoft conceded only at the last
> moment) but in my opinion no application which needs WinHelp can be
> properly described as 'Vista Compatible'.
>
> > You only have to install it in a folder in root directory and it works
> > fine. =A0I know you take issue with this approach but I take issue
with
> > Microsoft's approach.
>
> You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinions about
> Microsoft's security measures on Vista, but I don't think you should
> force those views on your customers. =A0I agree with you that File and
> Registry Virtualization (which is probably the feature which most
> impacts on LB when installed under Program Files) is nasty, and I
> would rather it not be there, but it is easily avoided by providing
> the proper manifest.
>
> > You are the only person (seriously, the only one) who has uttered
> > the slightest complaint
>
> Might I suggest you read more thoroughly the messages posted to the
> Liberty Basic Yahoo group?
>
> > and based on what, a philosophical stance?
>
> Not at all. =A0I am not a Microsoft apologist by any means, but I do
> applaud their attempts to improve the security of Windows and stem the
> tide of spambot PCs etc. =A0The security measures adopted in Vista,
> particularly UAC, may be flawed, but in my opinion it is the duty of
> application developers at least not to sabotage them.
>
> > When it comes down to it the system works fine as it is. =A0I just
> > don't think it is as im****tant as you suggest.
>
> I'm not complaining! =A0From feedback I've received I know I've sold
> more copies of BBC BASIC for Windows because of LB's perceived lack of
> sup****t and lack of recent updates (Vista-specific or otherwise).
>
> Richard.http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
> To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.
|
