4 ms·

> I am so glad it does. [...] I completely reject preserving backwards compatibility for the sake of application bugs. Why should Microsoft produce a hack for

> I am so glad it does. [...] I completely reject preserving backwards compatibility for the sake of application bugs. Why should Microsoft produce a hack for a particular piece of software? That software might be used by a 10s, 100s, 1000s of people for a certain amount of time, whereas Windows itself impacts billions of people daily and will continue to do so for decades to come. At some point the programmers, PMs, and maybe even the bug tracker behind these hacks will move on. Institutional knowledge is rarely forever. A newer generation of developers, PM, etc, will have to waste time understanding the bug, and deciding to support it or not. Possibly without ever knowing if the software in question has moved on itself, or is even in use anymore. Say what you want about Apple, but rarely the words "badly aged" or "crufty" are used to describe their ecosystems. They are the stunning definition of darwinism at its finest.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Being able to run software is what makes a computer valuable. If you constantly break software, the computer is useless. Fortunately nowadays we have more resources to throw at the problem and can run such software in containers, VMs, or other such isolated sub-environments when necessary, but that wasn't always the case.
coldpie 4y ago
And as a result, Apple platform developers have to tell their customers that Apple is breaking their stuff: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/5E0D-522A-4E62-B6EF https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/5E0D-522A-4E62-B6... which certainly doesn't earn them goodwill among the dev community. It's a trade-off, I don't think you can declare one strategy better than the other in absolute terms.
PaulHoule 4y ago
Microsoft has a systematic approach to applying these hacks so its less expensive for them to maintain them than it would be otherwise. For instance they changed the implementation of malloc() between Win95 and Win2k that broke some applications that depended on the behavior of the old malloc() so there is a flag in the system for those applications that restores the old malloc().
bombcar 4y ago
Windows uses _shims_ for much of this stuff, so if you're not running the out-of-date program, it's not running anything different. There are advantages to both ways of doing it, and for enterprise stuff the Windows way is very useful.
Steltek 4y ago
Apple is a terrible example to hold up for breaking backwards compatibility. Their capricious and self-serving changes are terrible for developers and users that just want their software to work. Apple and Windows are extremes in each direction. The best (and hardest) answer is to live in the middle somewhere.
Karellen 4y ago
> Why should Microsoft produce a hack for a particular piece of software? Because if software app Foo works fine on Windows X, and suddenly breaks on Windows X+1, users don't care if Foo is actually buggy or not. It worked on Windows X. What they see is that Windows X+1 broke Foo. And they talk to each other - "Do you use Foo? If so, don't upgrade to Windows X+1, it breaks Foo!" And if there's another app Bar which has a different bug that nevertheless works on Windows X but breaks on X+1, those users will chime in saying "Oh yeah, we noticed it breaks Bar too!" And then you get the general conversation go around "Don't upgrade to Windows X+1, it breaks random software!" Do you rely on some niche app, or even a semi-popular one made by anyone who isn't Microsoft? If so, better stay away from Windows X+1 - it breaks a bunch of random apps dontchaknow.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

Being able to run software is what makes a computer valuable. If you constantly break software, the computer is useless. Fortunately nowadays we have more resources to throw at the problem and can run such software in containers, VMs, or other such isolated sub-environments when necessary, but that wasn't always the case.

coldpie 4y ago

And as a result, Apple platform developers have to tell their customers that Apple is breaking their stuff: https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/5E0D-522A-4E62-B6EF https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/5E0D-522A-4E62-B6... which certainly doesn't earn them goodwill among the dev community. It's a trade-off, I don't think you can declare one strategy better than the other in absolute terms.

PaulHoule 4y ago

Microsoft has a systematic approach to applying these hacks so its less expensive for them to maintain them than it would be otherwise. For instance they changed the implementation of malloc() between Win95 and Win2k that broke some applications that depended on the behavior of the old malloc() so there is a flag in the system for those applications that restores the old malloc().

bombcar 4y ago

Windows uses _shims_ for much of this stuff, so if you're not running the out-of-date program, it's not running anything different. There are advantages to both ways of doing it, and for enterprise stuff the Windows way is very useful.

Steltek 4y ago

Apple is a terrible example to hold up for breaking backwards compatibility. Their capricious and self-serving changes are terrible for developers and users that just want their software to work. Apple and Windows are extremes in each direction. The best (and hardest) answer is to live in the middle somewhere.

Karellen 4y ago

> Why should Microsoft produce a hack for a particular piece of software? Because if software app Foo works fine on Windows X, and suddenly breaks on Windows X+1, users don't care if Foo is actually buggy or not. It worked on Windows X. What they see is that Windows X+1 broke Foo. And they talk to each other - "Do you use Foo? If so, don't upgrade to Windows X+1, it breaks Foo!" And if there's another app Bar which has a different bug that nevertheless works on Windows X but breaks on X+1, those users will chime in saying "Oh yeah, we noticed it breaks Bar too!" And then you get the general conversation go around "Don't upgrade to Windows X+1, it breaks random software!" Do you rely on some niche app, or even a semi-popular one made by anyone who isn't Microsoft? If so, better stay away from Windows X+1 - it breaks a bunch of random apps dontchaknow.