Thread: iGuidance 2009 and V 4.02 NOT WINDOWS 7 Compatible

System requirements for version 4.0, nor system requirements for version 2009, ever mentioned Windows 7.

Your version 4.0 is an old product, released in 2006 (Waaaay before Win 7 existed). Expecting a developer of any software to go that far back, and to work on a fix, is unreasonable.

Either update to version 2009, or wait for the upcoming version 4.2.

Even the version 2009 doesn't list Windows 7 in it's system requirements. However, people use it, and it works just fine. And just in case 2009 installation does encounter Win7 incompatibility, you may request, via email, a patch.

But remember even v.2009 was released before Win7. (Version 2009 is a product that released in the summer of 2008.)

Better wait till the upcoming v.4.2 comes out. It will be 100% Windows 7 compatible.

"Either update to version 2009, or wait for the upcoming version 4.2.

Even the version 2009 doesn't list Windows 7 in it's system requirements. However, people use it, and it works just fine. And just in case 2009 installation does encounter Win7 incompatibility, you may request, via email, a patch."



There is NO EVIDENCE that iGuidance 2009 "works just fine" with Windows 7.


The fault have been traced to Nalperion, and correspondence with Nalperion revealed that iNav NEVER UPGRADED THEIR NALPERION FOR AT LEAST 2 MAJOR RELEASES.

Hence, your suggestion that iGuidance 2009 "works just fine" simply does not wash IF the problem is, as I strongly believe, in Nalperion.

Windows 7 has built in strong backward compatibility (all the way up to basically including the actual XP code in Windows 7 for Business.

However, no amount of backward compatibility will address the issue of compatibility with the Windows XP Licensing system.

In the United States, bloggers who have a non-arms length relationship with a vendor have a legal duty to disclose their relationship.

Superficially,

"FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials
Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements

The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act.

The notice incorporates several changes to the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980.

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.

The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics."


===========================================

Would Marvin Hlavac kindly disclose any relationship with iNav or any other vendor that might lead one to question whether he is in compliance with the law in the United States?

Would Marvin Hlavac kindly disclose any relationship with iNav or any other vendor that might lead one to question whether he is in compliance with the law in the United States?

Wow, it seems me "defending" the product developer has been percieved by you as me doing it for a fee.

No, I have never been financially or otherwise compensated by iNav, or by any other product vendor. And that includes all my on-line and off-line activities, and my participation at this and other sites, including my own forum, Laptop GPS World ( ). On my own site I have not even looked for sponsors (perhaps I should, though ). The site has always been funded by me personally. It's just a hobby of mine.

As much as I sympathize with anyone experiencing any technical issues, the fact remains that early adopters of new operating systems do often encounter compatibility issues with old hardware and old software. Your iG 4.0 is four years old. Version 4.2 should be out this summer (2010). If you cannot wait that long, buy a product that does list Windows 7 in its system requirements.

Question.

Do the above mentioned products specifically say they are designed for Windows 7?


If the answer is no, then there is no case to answer.

If the answer is yes, then there is case to answer.


And from the info above, I gather they do not mention being Windows 7 compatible, therefore end of story.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

But that's it, end of.

IG4 works just fine on my Win7 system

No problems here either on 3 different machines.

I just wanted to say... works for me too, as well as 2009. Since November of last year, used on a semi-weekly basis, and even having SLIC licensing issues with one of my laptops.

Clearly the OP is not very savvy, who cannot seem to tackle the simplest task of getting an older software title installed on a newer operating system.

Also, it sounds like the OP tried to install his single copy of windows 7 onto multiple machines and activate them. Of course this doesn't create a standard situation.

Perhaps he has not even tried, but saw that the system requirements did not mention compatibility with all future operating systems and gave up there.

That being said, I've been using Win7 Ultimate for many months now with no issue. I'll keep an eye out though.

EDIT: However, I DO do the smart thing and image my machines so I can restore in the event of an issue. Still issue-free however, looking past the minor SLIC activation issue I had last month.

Just adding another defense that IG 4.0 is working perfect for me on Windows 7 64-bit.