"Frogboy, come on you aren't going to make us wait until fall right? You are just pulling all our legs...I think following the MS example on OS support is more than reasonable."
I suspect FB already made his decision and framed the question in such a manner so that the public response would be obvious. The only question is why did Stardock announce that WB4 would include 9x and w2k support when FB previously made it clear that he did not want to continue support for "outdated" OS's? And is now apparently making it appear that for SD to provide such support might in some way compromise the timely availability of WB for XP. (Why else suggest delaying WB for XP until the Fall when it can be ready in March?)
Clearly, the decision should be made based on good business sense. By no stretch of the imagination or common sense does unnecessarily delaying WB4 for XP until the Fall appear a viable or even serious consideration. Some might consider that a proposal of doing just that is a tad disingenous and specious, frankly. The question is clearly framed to evoke the desired response.
Just make the common sense decision based on the market and cost/benefit considerations. A delay in WB4 for 9x/w2k is already clearly a given. So of course, that would come later than the XP version that is almost ready for prime time now. If the real issue is whether or not to drop support for those OS's entirely, well then just make the decision based on the facts and sound business strategy. Don't need loaded questions to get public support for that, IMO.
As for those outdated OS's no longer worth supporting, seems like W2K is still viable. If it's not a significant portion of the market to make it worthwhile to continue to support, that's another issue. But dead it ain't yet...at least per MS's own schedule:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/desktop/business/default.mspx
