> Fair and reasonable means nothing to lawyers. Microsoft is a big target.
> That's in the US. In Europe there are laws saying you have to provide
> support for current products. The EULA doesn't trump laws.

But it depends how you define "support" and how you define "current".
"Fixes for major security breaches only" would be fine. Here's another
approach: "No more fixes to XP, but anyone who buys XP after June 08 gets a
free upgrade to Vista whenever they want it". That would certainly count as
support.

Remember, MS wouldn't lose money on it: the alternative is to force you to
buy a Vista license after June, and if they price them the same, it would
all be the same to their bottom line.

Simple, then: "Buy XP or Vista, whichever you prefer. The support for
Vista consists of ongoing bug fixes for five years. The support for XP
consists of a free update to Vista." I think this WOULD stand up in court,
especially when you compare it to the alternative: "buy Vista or piss off".

SteveT