Windows7 Compatible for filePro

[Fairlight]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:13:38AM -0400, Walter Vaughan may or may not have
proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
> Reading
>  
> Windows® 7 Client Software Logo
> Technical Requirements & Program Eligibility
> 
> leads one to believe that while it's possible, I am not sure they
> had filePro based applications in mind.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd203105.aspx

In which, the word "marketing" appears no less than three times.

As I said, it's mainly a marketing thing.  It's about as pointless as an
MCSE.  Actually, it's pretty much like an MCSE for software.  :b~~~

Let's face it...Microsoft has a hard time ensuring the quality and
stability of their own software.  Does anyone with a shred of intelligence
actually trust them to do a better job certifying third party software than
the third party developer themselves?

The amusing thing is that it appears to be a largely automated process.
I'm reading:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/E/9/1E9580D9-2B2B-499C-918A-C9BA5EAC4A32/Windows%207%20Client%20Software%20Logo.pdf

Step 2 seems suspiciously lax--rather like running dxdiag on a system
and giving support the information, which is usually worse than useless.
Maintaining the certified status seems like a pain; every time either of
the first two tiers of version number change, you need to re-certify.

And ohboy...take a look at Policy #3.  Any time an unhandled exception in
filePro itself comes up, the fP developer (Nancy, in this case) would be
forced to deal with the issue, even though she has no control over the fP
codebase whatsoever.  Additionally, if I'm reading later in that same
policy number correctly, if MS had an issue, they'd be within their rights
to request a licensed copy of fP under certain circumstances.

There are some interesting parts in the technical requirements section that
would worry me a bit as an fP developer as well.

The really important idea that I'm getting from this document is that it's
filePro itself that needs to be certified, -not- the MOS "application"
itself.  The fP developers don't exercise enough control over fP to really
be able to viably go the certification route.

And I haven't even -looked- at the legal agreements yet.  But it seems moot
to do so.

mark->