Category talk:Discontinued Microsoft software

Untitled

I was wondering if there may be a need to expand this category into a heirachy or to simplify into say a new category called End-of-life. This would allow hardware and software to be represented uniformly. -SusanRoy 06:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Abandonware. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Discontinued proprietary software like Microsoft's cannot be categorized as abandonware. After discontinuing, Microsoft usually provides support for these products for a limited time, and the relating copyrights are kept and maintaned afterall for ever, despite of support. (MSfan)

I also suggest to include the following products in this list (at the appropriate section): Microsoft Vizact 2000, Microsoft Liquid Motion. (MSfan)

Microsoft Frontpage

Microsoft FrontPage was replaced by Expression Web and SharePoint Designer so I think it should go here.

Agreed, feel free to add it, if haven't already. --Kibbled bits (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Taxsaver

Where is the Microsoft Taxsaver discontinuation debacle? Anyone who prepared their taxes with Microsoft Taxsaver was forgotten; especially, if audited by the taxing entity. My particular audit brought in DRM aspects, since Microsoft Taxsaver's installer would not actually install itself due to the deactivation of its authentication server versus the length of time between product discontinuation and the year the tax audit was initiated. As such, attempts to install a legally-obtained master of Microsoft Taxsaver to access legally-mandated data were unsuccessful. Intuit may have celebrated the demise of Microsoft Taxsaver; others lamented since the IRS remained and remains unforgiving when a tax software publisher exits the field.

As an aside...this lapse further exposes a continuing and growing issue with Wikipedia...related issues can only be integrated indirectly, at distance, neither completely nor fully. How and where can these inter-related ideas and constructs be connected and maintained across multiple articles? Additionally, if the "proof" or required reference was in a video interview, how could that be incorporated? Video interview references (with timecodes) are usually erased; what's the sense in that? Surely firsthand accounts by actual creators/practitioners/participants are equal to published documents (like admittedly, well-researched, but non-peer-reviewed books that are currently held sacrosanct). Please reflect on these comments, thank you.