• @stonedemoman
    link
    English
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I can see truth to either position presented in these comments, but I don’t like being a fence sitter. That being said, I would think making it available but not mandatory would satisfy both opinions, right? Making it unavailable altogether is a move that seems to have an ulterior motive.

    • @Vigge93
      link
      English
      101 year ago

      Not trying to defend Microsoft, but making it available to the fraction of a fraction that would actually download it is probably not worth it because you still would have to maintain it, making sure it’s compatible with new windows versions and providing security updates.

      It’s a lot easier to just kill it outright, and those that do actually really really want it can find some third party who has uploaded a version of the exe file somewhere.

      • @stonedemoman
        link
        English
        51 year ago

        I agree with the first half of your statement completely, but as for killing it outright I would think turning it over to FOSS developers would be a less incendiary solution. As many people are saying, it hardly competes with other software that is already available.

      • Aatube
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Isn’t backwards-compatibility Microsoft’s thing? You can still run an app in XP mode if my memory serves.

        • @pycorax
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          That’s more to do with application compatibility rather than providing applications.

          • Aatube
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Application Compatibility means you don’t have to maintain it.

    • Rentlar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      I wouldn’t be upset if they just put it on the Windows store.