[TChris]

The original analogy is correct.

What? This one, from the message to which you replied?

let's say they took your money for the truck, you brought the truck home, it died in your driveway that day, and had to be towed back to the dealer. The dealer says "Oh, the truck's ignition control module was deactivated by the Chevy proximity sensor.

First, nobody claimed Office dies. MS just stops updates. This is much more analogous to denying warranty work -- my analogy -- than to a complete failure of the product, rendering it entirely useless -- his analogy.

Also, the operating system is directly involved with the function of an application like Office, unlike the relationship of one truck to another. Its more like an engine to a transmission. :-)

[Still Thinking]

But you compared the situation here to Chevy refusing to fix/upgrade for free Chevy compatible transmissions originally purchased from Ford. That wouldn't be a problem. The situation here is that Microsoft is choosing how much to stand behind one of their own products (Office) depending upon whether or not the customer has also purchased a separate Microsoft product (Windows). Thus the analogy does not hold. Nobody said that Microsoft should offer warranty service, free or otherwise, for the products of others but Office is their own product. I didn't reply to you post to take a position on that issue so much as to point out what I thought was a flaw in your analogy. As far as the actual issue goes, I don't have a problem with them doing so, as long as they spell it out up front, so that it's not a case of changing the rules with the game already in play.