5 ms·

I honestly don't envy Microsoft. On one hand, you have the people who don't want Microsoft to break backwards compatibility. They want Microsoft to retain the a

I honestly don't envy Microsoft. On one hand, you have the people who don't want Microsoft to break backwards compatibility. They want Microsoft to retain the ability to run programs written a quarter of a century[1] ago. This is why all this legacy stuff sticks around in Windows. Then, you have those who want Microsoft to radically reinvent Windows, either by embracing WinUI 3 fully (what most people mean when they say UWP) or through something even newer. Windows 10X was a sort of middle ground: a OS that pushed all the old cruft into isolated containers. Sadly it looks like that approach isn't going anywhere (unless we see it come back in Windows 11). Project Reunion is a nice attempt to give developers an incremental upgrade path to modern Windows, so I'm hopeful that within the lifecycle of Windows 11 we'll start to see Microsoft develop a reasonable separation between modern and classic Windows apps. [1] Edit: quarter of a century, not quarter of a decade.

aasasd 5y ago
> retain the ability to run programs written a quarter of a decade ago I think I've seen computers with more uninterrupted uptime than that, even if servers. Or at least approaching this figure. Perhaps you meant ‘quarter of a millennium’ or something like that.
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  I know Enterprise customers require extreme backward compatibility, but it must be a fairly small number who are still running legacy code written in 1771.
  - aasasd 5y ago
    https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/jacquard-loom-simulator/ https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/jacquard-loom-simulator/ https://github.com/jfinkels/analyticalengine https://github.com/jfinkels/analyticalengine https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/emulator.html https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/emulator.html
    - Stratoscope 5y ago
      I stand corrected, and awed. Thank you! I had the good fortune to see the Babbage Engine in action when it was at the Computer History Museum. Only got a few photos, but here they are (plus an unrelated photo of a core memory plane): https://geary.smugmug.com/Computers/History/ https://geary.smugmug.com/Computers/History/ https://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ https://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/
Santosh83 5y ago
> They want Microsoft to retain the ability to run programs written a quarter of a decade ago. Enterprises expect to run programs developed a quarter century ago... if a quarter decade was all that was required, MS could have abandoned a lot more cruft.
- edoceo 5y ago
  2.5 years?! Who wants stability that short?
  - parheric 5y ago
    ...android security/version updates?? yes, I understand - bring on the downvotes
- dstaley 5y ago
  Blergh, was trying to decide between "two decades" and "quarter of a century" and my brain went with both!
siproprio 5y ago
What about me? I don't care about backwards compatibility - but I don't want "UWP" because it's impossible to make great apps following the guidelines.
- can16358p 5y ago
  I'm on the same boat, and would like to see proper design instead of supporting 200-years-old programs. But apparently we are minority and not the best interest of Microsoft. (Which is okay, BTW)
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    UNIX is older than Windows, and most people still expect to run their UNIX CLI applications on APIs that exist since UNIX V6.
- dstaley 5y ago
  > something even newer ;) Sadly I think this is the group Microsoft is least likely to attempt to cater towards.
- aasasd 5y ago
  Sounds like you might want to look into MacOS. Or at least might've wanted before Big Sur, dunno about now.
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    Yeah, macOS jumping on the "huge UI elements with tons of empty space" bandwagon was the proverbial straw for me that moved my beloved MBP from daily workhorse to random idle browsing machine. I'd say it's still not as bad as Windows, in that at least it's not pure white that burns your eyes, but I still hate how half of my laptop screen is taken up by useless UI elements.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Is this a thing with Big Sur? I haven't moved to it yet, but reading here [1] it doesn't seem like bad changes? [1] https://www.macworld.com/article/234382/macos-big-sur-learn-about-the-user-interface-changes.html https://www.macworld.com/article/234382/macos-big-sur-learn-...

aasasd 5y ago

> retain the ability to run programs written a quarter of a decade ago I think I've seen computers with more uninterrupted uptime than that, even if servers. Or at least approaching this figure. Perhaps you meant ‘quarter of a millennium’ or something like that.

Stratoscope 5y ago
I know Enterprise customers require extreme backward compatibility, but it must be a fairly small number who are still running legacy code written in 1771.
- aasasd 5y ago
  https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/jacquard-loom-simulator/ https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/jacquard-loom-simulator/ https://github.com/jfinkels/analyticalengine https://github.com/jfinkels/analyticalengine https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/emulator.html https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/emulator.html
  - Stratoscope 5y ago
    I stand corrected, and awed. Thank you! I had the good fortune to see the Babbage Engine in action when it was at the Computer History Museum. Only got a few photos, but here they are (plus an unrelated photo of a core memory plane): https://geary.smugmug.com/Computers/History/ https://geary.smugmug.com/Computers/History/ https://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/ https://www.computerhistory.org/babbage/

Santosh83 5y ago

> They want Microsoft to retain the ability to run programs written a quarter of a decade ago. Enterprises expect to run programs developed a quarter century ago... if a quarter decade was all that was required, MS could have abandoned a lot more cruft.

edoceo 5y ago
2.5 years?! Who wants stability that short?
- parheric 5y ago
  ...android security/version updates?? yes, I understand - bring on the downvotes
dstaley 5y ago
Blergh, was trying to decide between "two decades" and "quarter of a century" and my brain went with both!

siproprio 5y ago

What about me? I don't care about backwards compatibility - but I don't want "UWP" because it's impossible to make great apps following the guidelines.

can16358p 5y ago
I'm on the same boat, and would like to see proper design instead of supporting 200-years-old programs. But apparently we are minority and not the best interest of Microsoft. (Which is okay, BTW)
- pjmlp 5y ago
  UNIX is older than Windows, and most people still expect to run their UNIX CLI applications on APIs that exist since UNIX V6.
dstaley 5y ago
> something even newer ;) Sadly I think this is the group Microsoft is least likely to attempt to cater towards.
aasasd 5y ago
Sounds like you might want to look into MacOS. Or at least might've wanted before Big Sur, dunno about now.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  Yeah, macOS jumping on the "huge UI elements with tons of empty space" bandwagon was the proverbial straw for me that moved my beloved MBP from daily workhorse to random idle browsing machine. I'd say it's still not as bad as Windows, in that at least it's not pure white that burns your eyes, but I still hate how half of my laptop screen is taken up by useless UI elements.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    Is this a thing with Big Sur? I haven't moved to it yet, but reading here [1] it doesn't seem like bad changes? [1] https://www.macworld.com/article/234382/macos-big-sur-learn-about-the-user-interface-changes.html https://www.macworld.com/article/234382/macos-big-sur-learn-...