4 ms·

> do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS? That is to some extend how it works in Windows land. It was not until 64bit

> do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS? That is to some extend how it works in Windows land. It was not until 64bit was a thing that they removed support for 16bit programs, and there is still many ways to run them. Everyone that cares about backwards compatibility just needs to read this http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780321440303/samplechapter/Chen_bonus_ch01.pdf http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780321440303/samplech... to get an idea of the history MS has of backwards compatibility.

ridiculous_fish 9y ago
Microsoft's 64 bit transition was more awkward with more compatibility breaks, compared to Apple. Microsoft sold separate Windows 32 bit and 64 bit versions, under different SKUs. The 64 bit version broke compatibility with 32 bit drivers, but not all software would work on 32 bit, so it was important to know which version you had. Many computers advertised as 64 bit were sold with 32 bit Windows, so it was possible to download an incompatible app version. It was a confusing time. Apple had only one SKU. Applications had 32 bit and 64 bit versions in the same binary, so there was only one version to download. The kernel supported 64 bit addressing and 32 bit drivers, so there was no hardware compatibility break. It was invisible to users.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  I agree completely, but that doesn't change the fact that non-kernel software backwards compatibility is very high priority for Microsoft. I find it a bit dishonest to claim MacOS did so much better without mentioning that they have a fraction of the hardware to support, compared to Windows. When the different hardware combinations are not greater than something you can setup in a warehouse, it's straightforward to test them all.

4 ms·

> do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS? That is to some extend how it works in Windows land. It was not until 64bit

by hvidgaard 9y ago

ridiculous_fish 9y ago
Microsoft's 64 bit transition was more awkward with more compatibility breaks, compared to Apple. Microsoft sold separate Windows 32 bit and 64 bit versions, under different SKUs. The 64 bit version broke compatibility with 32 bit drivers, but not all software would work on 32 bit, so it was important to know which version you had. Many computers advertised as 64 bit were sold with 32 bit Windows, so it was possible to download an incompatible app version. It was a confusing time. Apple had only one SKU. Applications had 32 bit and 64 bit versions in the same binary, so there was only one version to download. The kernel supported 64 bit addressing and 32 bit drivers, so there was no hardware compatibility break. It was invisible to users.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  I agree completely, but that doesn't change the fact that non-kernel software backwards compatibility is very high priority for Microsoft. I find it a bit dishonest to claim MacOS did so much better without mentioning that they have a fraction of the hardware to support, compared to Windows. When the different hardware combinations are not greater than something you can setup in a warehouse, it's straightforward to test them all.