> Maybe there are some issues I am not considering or not aware of but here
> are my thoughts...
>
> It is utterly ridiculous that this arguement even exists. Why should
> Livingston spend time making their product downward compatible with a
> standard developed 10 years ago? I would rather that they spend time
> developing new products and supporting products which work with today's
> technology.
>
This same philosophy of going overboard with downward compatibility is the
reason PCs are still not as powerful and flexible as they should be. After
all, making everything backward compatible with the good ole AT (how many
people in the nation had really invested a great deal of money in software at
that time??) is what gave us the wonder of EMM386 configuration nightmares
instead of resolving the 640k memory problem right then. Not to mention -
problem I run in to on a regular basis now - lots of great peripherals, but no
... IRQs! If I want to add a scanner to my system I have to buy an additional
computer just to get another open IRQ. Ridiculous!
I believe in backward compatibility. But backward compatibility is meant to
be a temporary step to allow people to slowly upgrade components, hardware,
etc... not a permanent hold on the system. There has been plenty of time given
to wean people off of 2400 baud. It is time to move on. We can't keep the
baby on the bottle (milk, that is! ;-) when he is 15 years old!
Technical Support - Applied InterNet Solutions
- Jeremy T. Elston - System Engineer
(TechSupport@Greenwood.net)
"Professionalism is a way of life, not a part-time job."