3-year lifespan

[Tim Romano]

Patrick,
You've missed my point entirely. I am not making the assertion that
applications will have a three-year lifespan. I am making the assertion that
Microsoft wants us to start thinking in terms of applications having a
shorter lifespan. Do you see the difference? This is a marketing stratagem.
Microsoft seeking to bend minds and set expectations with respect to ROI.
Do you see why I said that you had not read my original message carefully
when your reply was to say that *I* was exaggerating, and that applications
will have a longer lifespan?

Tim Romano

Patrick Troughton wrote:

> That the lifespan of an application, either now or in the forseeable
future,
> would only be three years is inaccurrate.
>
> > How can a lifespan be inaccurate?
>
> It would be inaccurate in the sense that it's erroneous.
>
> /Pat
>
>

[Patrick Troughton]

So you're saying it's Microsoft's inaccuracy, not yours? That's fine, my point
wasn't who said what, but whether or not the assertion was valid. Sorry for
saying you were the one guilty of the exageration. BTW, do you have a cite?
I haven't seen anything from Microsoft that says apps will now only have
3-year lifespans.

/Pat

"Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote:
>Patrick,
>You've missed my point entirely. I am not making the assertion that
>applications will have a three-year lifespan. I am making the assertion
that
>Microsoft wants us to start thinking in terms of applications having a
>shorter lifespan. Do you see the difference? This is a marketing stratagem.
>Microsoft seeking to bend minds and set expectations with respect to ROI.
>Do you see why I said that you had not read my original message carefully
>when your reply was to say that *I* was exaggerating, and that applications
>will have a longer lifespan?
>
>Tim Romano
>
>Patrick Troughton wrote:
>
>> That the lifespan of an application, either now or in the forseeable
>future,
>> would only be three years is inaccurrate.
>>
>> > How can a lifespan be inaccurate?
>>
>> It would be inaccurate in the sense that it's erroneous.
>>
>> /Pat

[Patrick Troughton]

No, I think you're the one who doesn't get it. I could explain it to you again,
but I would be repeating myself. There's no point in arguing if you're not
going to pay attention so let's just agree to disagree, OK?

In any case, I asked for a cite in my last post and you ignored it. So again
I ask: Do you have a cite?

/Pat

"Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote:
>Man, you just don't get it. It's not whether Microsoft's assertion is
>accurate or inaccurate. We're talking about the FUTURE after all. It's
a
>question of SPIN. Propaganda.
>Tim Romano
>
>"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
>news:3b3b303b$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> So you're saying it's Microsoft's inaccuracy, not yours? That's fine,
my
>point
>> wasn't who said what, but whether or not the assertion was valid. Sorry
>for
>> saying you were the one guilty of the exageration. BTW, do you have a
>cite?
>> I haven't seen anything from Microsoft that says apps will now only have
>> 3-year lifespans.
>>
>> /Pat

[Tim Romano]

Man, you just don't get it. It's not whether Microsoft's assertion is
accurate or inaccurate. We're talking about the FUTURE after all. It's a
question of SPIN. Propaganda.
Tim Romano

"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3b3b303b$1@news.devx.com...
>
> So you're saying it's Microsoft's inaccuracy, not yours? That's fine, my
point
> wasn't who said what, but whether or not the assertion was valid. Sorry
for
> saying you were the one guilty of the exageration. BTW, do you have a
cite?
> I haven't seen anything from Microsoft that says apps will now only have
> 3-year lifespans.
>
> /Pat
>
> "Tim Romano" <tim_romano at yahoo dot com> wrote:
> >Patrick,
> >You've missed my point entirely. I am not making the assertion that
> >applications will have a three-year lifespan. I am making the assertion
> that
> >Microsoft wants us to start thinking in terms of applications having a
> >shorter lifespan. Do you see the difference? This is a marketing
stratagem.
> >Microsoft seeking to bend minds and set expectations with respect to ROI.
> >Do you see why I said that you had not read my original message carefully
> >when your reply was to say that *I* was exaggerating, and that
applications
> >will have a longer lifespan?
> >
> >Tim Romano
> >
> >Patrick Troughton wrote:
> >
> >> That the lifespan of an application, either now or in the forseeable
> >future,
> >> would only be three years is inaccurrate.
> >>
> >> > How can a lifespan be inaccurate?
> >>
> >> It would be inaccurate in the sense that it's erroneous.
> >>
> >> /Pat
>