4 ms·
I wasn't so much suggesting that touch was the future, as suggesting that nowhere was the future if they keep lugging about compatibility for the last 6 or 7 (m
by zarify 15y ago
I wasn't so much suggesting that touch was the future, as suggesting that nowhere was the future if they keep lugging about compatibility for the last 6 or 7 (major) versions of the OS, all the while looking at radically changing the way things work. This is the approach that brought us Windows 3.1 and 95.
- sapper2 15y agoDon't forget, Win 3.1 and 95 were a HUGE commercial success.
- pragmatic 15y agoWindows 3.1 and 95 were _fantastic_ in their day. You might not be old enough to remember DOS programs...
- zarify 15y agoI remember DOS programs just fine. In fact, thanks to today's technology, I don't even need to be old enough to remember them, I'm still living with some of them ;) [slight exaggeration sure, but not excessively so IMO] My point wasn't so much the advances that 3.1 and 95 were or weren't, it's that each had fairly impressive improvements in the UI, but were still veneers bolted on to the last OS. I can appreciate them wanting legacy support since their cash cow is the business sector, but in doing so they limit their scope for advancement.