XP Plus in MSDN Subscription

Why is there no XP Plus included in the MSDN subscriptions? Plus for WIN 98
is available though.

Plus! for Windows XP does not contain any programmable components, nor does
it extend the OS API set.

Plus! for Windows 98 contained a Theme Manager which could potentially
affect the UI of apps to the extent of impairing usability, so developers
might need it for testing and it could not be obtained any other way than
from Plus! for Windows 98. There was also zipfldr.dll which implements the
"Compressed Folders" feature (integration of zip files into the Windows
Explorer shell). Third-party unzipping programs can be affected by it if
they associate with the zip extension while zipfldr.dll remains registered.
There are implications for both UI and for setup/uninstall of such programs,
therefore it could also be needed for developer testing.

MSDN Subscriptions are not intended to be a "goody bag" of all Microsoft
products. They are intended for development and testing. You could argue
that there is a fine line. For example, a developer might want to use
Microsoft Digital Image Pro to create/edit graphic images for a web app or
to dress up WinForms. Someone writing a video card driver might want to
stress-test its DirectX support using Microsoft Halo. But given that
Microsoft has obviously drawn a line which stops short of those products,
it's really hard to make a case for Plus! for Windows XP. There's just
nothing in it which you could claim (with a straight face) a developer
needs.



"Cape Town" <cape@town.com> wrote in message
news:eKSGFBDgEHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Why is there no XP Plus included in the MSDN subscriptions? Plus for WIN
> 98
> is available though.

Thanks Ronny
I agree it would rather be a "nice to have"  than a necessity.


"Ronny Ong" <ronnyong@killspam-bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:%23w$TCtEgEHA.1652@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Plus! for Windows XP does not contain any programmable components, nor
does
> it extend the OS API set.
>
> Plus! for Windows 98 contained a Theme Manager which could potentially
> affect the UI of apps to the extent of impairing usability, so developers
> might need it for testing and it could not be obtained any other way than
> from Plus! for Windows 98. There was also zipfldr.dll which implements the
> "Compressed Folders" feature (integration of zip files into the Windows
> Explorer shell). Third-party unzipping programs can be affected by it if
> they associate with the zip extension while zipfldr.dll remains
registered.
> There are implications for both UI and for setup/uninstall of such
programs,
> therefore it could also be needed for developer testing.
>
> MSDN Subscriptions are not intended to be a "goody bag" of all Microsoft
> products. They are intended for development and testing. You could argue
> that there is a fine line. For example, a developer might want to use
> Microsoft Digital Image Pro to create/edit graphic images for a web app or
> to dress up WinForms. Someone writing a video card driver might want to
> stress-test its DirectX support using Microsoft Halo. But given that
> Microsoft has obviously drawn a line which stops short of those products,
> it's really hard to make a case for Plus! for Windows XP. There's just
> nothing in it which you could claim (with a straight face) a developer
> needs.
>
>
>
> "Cape Town" <cape@town.com> wrote in message
> news:eKSGFBDgEHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... 
>
>