3 ms·
This isn't really true. If Microsoft of 2016 has a focus on backwards compatibility it is only because of their myriad mistakes in the past. I know people have
by ebbv 10y ago
This isn't really true. If Microsoft of 2016 has a focus on backwards compatibility it is only because of their myriad mistakes in the past. I know people have this false impression because of fluff pieces that have been written about Microsoft having a focus on backward compatibility but anyone who has lived through the last 30 years of computing history knows this isn't really true. They have broken backward compatibility numerous times.
Many, many DOS programs would not run under Windows 3.1, necessitating users to boot into or exit out into DOS to run those programs, and of course Windows programs could not run under DOS.
Windows 95 generally did better at running DOS programs but it was far from flawless. Many programs required all kinds of workarounds and even patches.
Windows NT was originally a complete departure from DOS and Windows 3.1, 95, etc. only later on did Microsoft realize that they needed a compatibility layer for NT to ever go mainstream (along with a rebranding.)
Windows Vista broke tons of stuff too. Including everybody's printer drivers. When Vista was released you could buy a Vista computer along with a printer which had no drivers for Vista and which HP would tell you there's no Vista drivers ever coming.
Windows 8 may not have broken execution of Windows 7 apps but the entire UI was a complete shift from what users were accustomed to. Whether you liked it or not, that kind of major change is a big mistake when so many of your customers are tech novices who are not going to have an easy or enjoyable time learning how to use their computer from scratch.
This is just scratching the surface. My point is let's tell the truth here, Microsoft is not some hero of backward compatibility who has never made a mistake and always kept their users at heart.
- filereaper 10y agoNot really arguing with your points, but it seems Microsoft has a lot of lessons learnt from maintaining backwards compatibility. It'd be wonderful if their architects collected and codified these somewhere, ie "we did X because of Y, it didn't work, because Z ends up happening" Mostly as a lesson for the rest of us not to fruitlessly repeat.
- jschwartzi 10y agoIt's probably all there in their issue trackers. That's partly why software teams track issues, because somewhere there's a decision to be made and a story to be told, and that story is written in the issue before it's closed. Software development is really all about finishing stories.
- jzwinck 10y agoWhile it would be hard to call any kiloperson organization a hero, it is remarkable how people on the Windows team keep old software working even if it does not deserve to. The most accessible documentation of this is Raymond Chen's blog. For example here's a piece written in 2007 about Windows 95 and DOS: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071224-00/?p=24063 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071224-00/?p=... While the herculean task of billion-device compatibility has not always gone off without a hitch, the idea that the past was all gaffes and trial and error at Microsoft does not ring true if you read the above blog from one of its more prolific public writers.
- ebbv 10y agoMaintaining hardware compatibility with any PC hardware ever created is indeed nigh-impossible, so you'll note I didn't even mention that. I only talked about maintaining compatibility with applications written for their own operating system. Something that Microsoft does have pretty much universal control over. The only mention I made about devices was regarding the printer driver issue with Vista, which had nothing to do with the devices and everything to do with Microsoft totally redoing their printer driver implementation on the OS level. It necessitated all drivers be redone and some manufacturers (like HP) took the not very admirable path of telling customers they were up a creek.
- barrkel 10y agoWindows 95 came with a way to configure shortcuts so that they would reboot back into DOS, just to run the program, and resume after you quit. I call that going the extra mile. I remember the shuffling you had to do to make enough extended memory or expanded memory (depending on the program) available. It was no small feat to be backwards compatible with programs interacting more or less directly with the BIOS and with custom routines for individual makes of add-in cards. Successfully shifting that whole ecosystem to a fully protected mode, preemptive environment over the course of 6 years or so (from 95's first release to XP) was probably the most impressive software migration we've ever seen.
- gkop 10y agoIn addition, I believe there is a large amount of Windows-native software that runs better under WINE than it does under Windows 10. Edit: am I wrong? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)#Backward_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)#Backward_compa...
- thomasz 10y agoI would be careful to trust wikipedia about this, especially if there are no citations.