Thanks for your reply, but I don't agree with letting MS get off that lightly.
For a product pitched at the home user, that is a subtlety that should be spelled out. For the normal home user, supported operating system means 'everything works', not 'the main bits work, but limitations in the operating system mean some bits don't,
but if you don't know, we're not going to tell you'. If only some of the functionality works with one of the O/S's, they should spell that out.
Frankly, I think the choice is different from 'misleading' or 'incorrect'.
I think the options are more along the lines of 'deliberate misrepresentation', +/- 'incompetence'.
Yes, I am pissed off - before I purchased their product I read MS's own product documentation to make sure their product would suit my purposes, only to discover it doesn't, because they misrepresent it's compatibility. I needed to be able to manage
my server from my netbook, and can't without paying more money to MS to upgrade the O/S, all because of their misrepresentation.
Unfortunately, MS living down to my (very low) expectations as usual.
David
