3 ms·

I'm not sure that your point makes sense. If Microsoft insists on backwards compatibility, then you _can_ upgrade with "no worries". This policy seems to encour

I'm not sure that your point makes sense. If Microsoft insists on backwards compatibility, then you _can_ upgrade with "no worries". This policy seems to encourage people to upgrade as the new OS will honor the old mechanisms. In an OS where there was no commitment to backwards compatibility you would have an incentive to not change anything when it works. > My point is: why rush to upgrade when you've got "support" anyway? This is a different point. But you seem to be criticizing the decision by Microsoft to focus on backwards compatibility and support for old operating systems, two things that seem to be commendable.

mstade 9y ago
No, my apologies, I'm not being very clear then. I don't mean to criticise Microsoft here, in fact I think their commitment to backwards compatibility is commendable and I think history proves they've at least tried to get people on the automatic updates track. Execution hasn't been flawless, for sure, but we're in better place now than we were 15-20 years ago. And I'm also not trying to draw any conclusions with my post. I'm genuinely wondering whether the fact that Microsoft has been so committed to backwards compatibility has fostered a kind of mentality where people and indeed developers don't upgrade, simply because they know they won't be abandoned anyway. It's always easier not to change anything, and if the message is typically "you'll be fine" anyway then where's the incentive? The "you'll be safer, probably" message doesn't seem to me like it's working. You're probably right that I'm not making much sense, I'm finding it a bit hard to put my thoughts into words here.