[ShadowAce]

To me it only makes sense for MS to focus on development of new products, rather than being required or expected to continue to support old and outdated ones in perpetuity.

I happen to agree here. I think that what this writer is saying is that MS is terminating support sooner than expected. That is what is upsetting him.

However, is MS doesn't have to support older versions, then they can concentrate on writing better bugs software in newer version.

[Billthedrill]

I might point out that Windows 2000 server is "officially" at the end of life, meaning that no service packs and only security updates will be offered, the latter officially to paying support customers only but in practice to everyone because (1) there aren't any updates (lately) that haven't been security-related, and (2) Microsoft can't really afford to let their branded boxes become unsupported virus factories.

It turns out to be harder to withdraw technical support from an established platform than simply declaring it won't be offered anymore. That's another downside to being number one in market share.

[HairOfTheDog]

I happen to agree here. I think that what this writer is saying is that MS is terminating support sooner than expected. That is what is upsetting him.

I gathered that. But I also gather that most of the people actually complaining here on the thread do so because they think everything should be free.

I pay for good software, keep it updated, buy new versions when they make sense and I never have a bit of trouble with it. I don't ~want~ root. I don't want to know how or why my computer works, I just want to drive it.