4 ms·

I understand what you mean but one of the powers of Microsoft is, in fact, their extreme backwards compatibility and it would be very damaging if they chose to

I understand what you mean but one of the powers of Microsoft is, in fact, their extreme backwards compatibility and it would be very damaging if they chose to throw that out of the window.

ThomasWinwood 5y ago
They could do what Apple did and provide a Windows compatibility layer which gets progressively more buried as old software gets replaced until it's just kept around for the weird stuff that never gets properly updated because it's maintained by a rotating set of undergrads.
- hughrr 5y ago
  They tried that with the App Store stuff. That was supposed to be the new world. But it wasn’t compelling, the store sucked and still does today and it was and still is like wading in excrement working on that side of things.
  - fnordsensei 5y ago
    Then it seems like a problem with execution rather than a fundamental problem with the concept. Especially with Apple as a largely successful counterexample.
    - hughrr 5y ago
      Oh yes exactly that. It's a terrible execution of a good idea.
knolan 5y ago
That’s why I qualified with a comment on an LTS version of Windows. Keep something around for the next decade (or two) that keeps old hardware running. Allow virtualisation for everyone else. It does seem that Apple’s approach of aggressively throwing out support for features while designing their own silicon with none of the legacy support that Intel keep around for x86 has paid off. Rosetta 2 ‘just works’. For enterprise, some version of Windows will probably always be needed. WSL has shown that MS can respond to the developer community and shows that they can do it well. For home users and gamers a fast and lean OS will help shift hardware. The former who will be tempted by Macs and the latter who don’t want bloat will want as little OS overhead as possible.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
They could build a completely new OS and keep the compatibility with a compatibility layer like Wine. Somehow I doubt the New Microsoft will do it right though. They don't strike me as the kind of people who give a shit about compatibility and user experience the way Old Microsoft did.
xattt 5y ago
Apple had no issue with virtualizing Mac OS Classic, and people were in an uproar when this went away.

I understand what you mean but one of the powers of Microsoft is, in fact, their extreme backwards compatibility and it would be very damaging if they chose to throw that out of the window.

ThomasWinwood 5y ago

They could do what Apple did and provide a Windows compatibility layer which gets progressively more buried as old software gets replaced until it's just kept around for the weird stuff that never gets properly updated because it's maintained by a rotating set of undergrads.

hughrr 5y ago
They tried that with the App Store stuff. That was supposed to be the new world. But it wasn’t compelling, the store sucked and still does today and it was and still is like wading in excrement working on that side of things.
- fnordsensei 5y ago
  Then it seems like a problem with execution rather than a fundamental problem with the concept. Especially with Apple as a largely successful counterexample.
  - hughrr 5y ago
    Oh yes exactly that. It's a terrible execution of a good idea.

knolan 5y ago

That’s why I qualified with a comment on an LTS version of Windows. Keep something around for the next decade (or two) that keeps old hardware running. Allow virtualisation for everyone else. It does seem that Apple’s approach of aggressively throwing out support for features while designing their own silicon with none of the legacy support that Intel keep around for x86 has paid off. Rosetta 2 ‘just works’. For enterprise, some version of Windows will probably always be needed. WSL has shown that MS can respond to the developer community and shows that they can do it well. For home users and gamers a fast and lean OS will help shift hardware. The former who will be tempted by Macs and the latter who don’t want bloat will want as little OS overhead as possible.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

They could build a completely new OS and keep the compatibility with a compatibility layer like Wine. Somehow I doubt the New Microsoft will do it right though. They don't strike me as the kind of people who give a shit about compatibility and user experience the way Old Microsoft did.

xattt 5y ago

Apple had no issue with virtualizing Mac OS Classic, and people were in an uproar when this went away.