5 ms·

Microsoft only cares about legacy support if it means the vast majority of customers. I will give you an example: go to a top tier research institution for biol

by asdff 4y ago

Microsoft only cares about legacy support if it means the vast majority of customers. I will give you an example: go to a top tier research institution for biology, and sort your cells with the fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS). You might have to now burn that data onto a cd rom, because the software running the six figure instrument was written in 2002 for windows XP, and for reasons only known to microsoft, this software is no longer able to run on modern windows. So now IT has to airgap the desktop sitting by the machine, and the only way they let you get data off according to policy is through CD rom, not usb because that breaches the gap. The vendor for the instrument has no incentive to update that software either; they'd rather you dish out another half million dollars for a new sorter. There are hundreds of instruments like this in any given research institute, all because Microsoft decided unilaterally that software that ran fine 20 years ago is clearly useless and doesn't need to run anymore on modern hardware that receives security updates.

jiggawatts 4y ago
Would you expect a 20-year-old MacOS to run on a modern MacBook? Why not? Would you expect a 20-year-old Linux to install just fine on a modern PC? I remind you that this was the era of RHEL 3! I had trouble getting RHEL 6 running in a virtual machine just recently. Meanwhile XP will run on most modern PCs, it’s just not supported. That means no security patches. The mistake here is not Microsoft’s. The mistake is your organisation’s for buying a half-million-dollar device with no support plan from the vendor for its control OS.
- asdff 4y ago
  I would expect a bash script I wrote 20 years ago to run on a new linux machine I buy today, yes. I'm not asking for windows XP to be installed, I am asking for these modern machines to let me run the code the machine I was sold 15 years ago let me run. This whole march to reduce compatibility is kind of stupid imo. Let me buy a mac that can run 32 bit software still!
  - whizzter 4y ago
    Windows does run most stuff that you throw at it still unless the software made some boneheaded assumptions that violated basic API rules. Software using a lib I wrote in 1998 doesn't work anymore but it's because I took a bad shortcut that made DOS-era assumptions, fixing/recompiling it would be the right course of action but I haven't had the time (also not sure where all the sources are). On a contrary note, my first USB-Wacom pads STILL work after 20 years, it's not just software but a vendor that cared about it's software long enough to make 64bit drivers that still works. As you said, the vendor isn't interested in upgrading the software and there is where the blame is, MS tries to keep backwards compatibility but some things has had to go for performance and/or security reasons over the years and those usually broke rules (or were tied to HW, Linux has dropped 386 and 486 after all).
    - jiggawatts 4y ago
      I've recently seen code from 1998 running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2016 cloud-hosted virtual machine just fine.
- sentientslug 4y ago
  Respectfully you have no idea what you're talking about. These half-million dollar devices (often more expensive than that) were the ONLY option at the time to perform certain kinds of experiments. Not exactly a choice.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    So the vendor refuses to sell a support plan and requires you to purchase a brand new machine? That does sound monopolistic and abusive but I don’t see how Microsoft is to blame.
    - sentientslug 4y ago
      Basically, yes this is how it goes. And I agree that it's not Microsoft's fault.
  - vouwfietsman 4y ago
    Respectfully you have no idea how complex an OS is and how completely nonsensical it is to expect 100% backwards compatibility for 2 decades later. There is a reason software gets sunsetted: most of it is irrelevant 20 years later and holding on to it makes everything much more complex than it already is. Especially for a consumer OS like windows, where you can expect the vast majority of people to upgrade. If this is some multi-million dollar device then maybe keeping it up to date with windows should have been part of the deal... Did you know windows is basically known for excellent backwards compatibility? https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii-chicken-and-egg-problems/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...
    - sentientslug 4y ago
      I'm not sure what part of my comment you're responding to because I wasn't referring to anything related to backwards compatibility. I was responding to the other commenter asserting that biotech companies have somehow made an incorrect judgement call by purchasing certain types of instrument. In reality these vendors assume you're going to keep the system air-gapped forever, some don't even (officially) support joining their control PCs to a domain. Anecdotally I've found that in a lot of cases unless you're dealing with strange custom drivers usually the vendor-provided PCs can be replaced with new computers running the same control software (sometimes in compatibility mode if needed) and still operate the instrument.
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  As a device builder creating those machines (well, industrial CNCs, but similar idea) I don't have many options when trying to build something with a useful life of 20+ years. I just received an order for another machine in a lineup that started with some using Heidenhain controls from the early 90s, we ripped out those controllers and replaced them with models running a custom black box RTOS based on Motorola DSP 56002 chips on ISA cards that were on Windows 98 and Windows XP motherboards, then that company got aquihired and they stopped making those cards, there was a brief foray into PowerPC and now we're installing Arm processors running surprisingly modern Linux 4.9 with preempt_rt. We're talking to these motion controllers using VB6 running on a bunch of Windows 7 PCs with a few compatibility hacks enabled, and I'm installing new fanless PCs with Windows 10 LTSC 21H2, which claims support until 2032-01-13. If it's not running those relatively public, well-documented systems, it's likely a PLC or robot containing a proprietary ASIC running some WindRiver RTOS, and completely subject to the whims and survivability of that product line. I love my customer's maintenance department, they're unusually thorough and attentive to preventative maintenance, greasing and oiling and replacing wear items, root-causing failures and keeping the machines in good working order for decades. But when you keep fixing each individual small part that breaks, eventually the market moves on and you have to throw all the replaceable parts away and start over. The process requirements haven't changed, the weldments and castings aren't broken, it's just that you can't replace a failed servo drive or Core 2 motherboard or ISA card because the supply chain gave up on them 10 years ago. There's no great advantage of Windows 10 LTSC and a 64-bit Arm controller over Windows 98 with 56002 ISA cards except that I can buy the former today and I can't buy the latter because no one makes them anymore. There is no control OS or hardware supply chain that lasts as long as military, industrial, or scientific equipment can be made to last. Fanuc and others try with massive vertical integration and a "never deprecate anything" mantra, but they don't run their own semiconductor fabs to guarantee production of chips for stuff that doesn't keep up with the rat race. Yes, I'll keep supporting my company's gear for as long as possible, but sometimes the answer is that I need to throw away 4 working servomotors, drives, a controller, and a PC, and invest 600 engineering hours into making this machine do the exact same thing it did last week, because that 5th drive blew the IGBT and took out the controller and no one can get a replacement. Customers don't like to issue $100k invoices when a $1k subcomponent dies...because that $1k quote was from 2008, and it's now literally priceless.
morpheos137 4y ago
Sounds like the writer of the software is equally at fault, and the sysadmin could have been more creative. I see no reason why the data collection can't be managed by a highly portable console app running inside a VM or dos emulator or the legacy PC can't be kept behind a firewall that only lets data out.
- jackvalentine 4y ago
  > I see no reason why the data collection can't be managed by a highly portable console app running inside a VM or dos emulator or the legacy PC can't be kept behind a firewall that only lets data out. Having been in this exact situation at a research institution with expensive equipment and Windows XP only software before - support. Helpdesk and lower levels of back-end only pay a certain amount so turn over constantly, and “those PCs have had hot glue put in their ethernet jacks and USB ports and burning CDs is the only way to get data out” is a hell of a lot easier to reliably keep going than some esoteric system of VMs and firewall rules. The people in the lab have way more tolerance for having to burn CDs than they do for firewall changes stuffing up their process and taking a while to figure out and resolve!
- SlickNixon 4y ago
  >or the legacy PC can't be kept behind a firewall that only lets data out Only because I had the same thought and I feel like you might know more, is there an example of software that does this securely?
  - morpheos137 4y ago
    OpenBSD. The documentation is good too. The social engineering of getting campus IT to approve your solution might be harder though.
mrdatawolf 4y ago
Your vendor didn't provide you with free updates to match changes in the larger OS ecosystem. Then you get mad at the larger OS for not supporting the niche software of your vendor. BTW neither the vendor nor the OS maker is the problem. You are. Your entitlement that the world should grind to a halt to wait for you is.
- asdff 4y ago
  Is having a unix philosophy on software entitled? Then I guess I am then.
  - oblio 4y ago
    Unix philosophy on software ? Let's be real here. Command line Posix stuffgenerally works and Linux stuff works because Linus insists it should. But what about the whole glibc debacle from about a decade ago? Entire distros broke compatibility. And let's not get started with *nix GUI framewors and apps, those break compat more often than I change my socks :-)))
lozenge 4y ago
The only way to continue supporting all those things is to never change anything. Even if all the APIs are still around, are they going to be bug-compatible?
908B64B197 4y ago
> and for reasons only known to microsoft, this software is no longer able to run on modern windows. The reason is most likely... because the driver relies on APIs that were insecure and removed in the XP-Vista transition! > The vendor for the instrument has no incentive to update that software either; they'd rather you dish out another half million dollars for a new sorter. > There are hundreds of instruments like this in any given research institute, all because Microsoft decided unilaterally that software that ran fine 20 years ago is clearly useless and doesn't need to run anymore on modern hardware that receives security updates. So it's Microsoft's fault that the vendor won't update it's software? Didn't this "elite institution" get a support contract for the machine? Would they expect the driver and software to still work if it had been written for a PowerMac G5, running Mac OS X Panther? Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux? Yes. As long as it includes all its dependencies, it should work because the kernel never deprecates system calls.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    What about the ABI?
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      What about it?
      - 908B64B197 4y ago
        I don't think kernel ABI is compatible between versions. So unless the vendor distributes the source for the driver interfacing with the machine, it shouldn't run on modern releases.
tangjurine 4y ago
My friend was working at Microsoft on JavaScript engine bugs for Internet explorer last year. He was telling me they had a contract with a large insurance company to support ie, and that because he found out about the contract his job feel a little less useless. So it seems like to me they do care about legacy support. Maybe you just need to pay for it

by asdff 4y ago

jiggawatts 4y ago

Would you expect a 20-year-old MacOS to run on a modern MacBook? Why not? Would you expect a 20-year-old Linux to install just fine on a modern PC? I remind you that this was the era of RHEL 3! I had trouble getting RHEL 6 running in a virtual machine just recently. Meanwhile XP will run on most modern PCs, it’s just not supported. That means no security patches. The mistake here is not Microsoft’s. The mistake is your organisation’s for buying a half-million-dollar device with no support plan from the vendor for its control OS.

asdff 4y ago
I would expect a bash script I wrote 20 years ago to run on a new linux machine I buy today, yes. I'm not asking for windows XP to be installed, I am asking for these modern machines to let me run the code the machine I was sold 15 years ago let me run. This whole march to reduce compatibility is kind of stupid imo. Let me buy a mac that can run 32 bit software still!
- whizzter 4y ago
  Windows does run most stuff that you throw at it still unless the software made some boneheaded assumptions that violated basic API rules. Software using a lib I wrote in 1998 doesn't work anymore but it's because I took a bad shortcut that made DOS-era assumptions, fixing/recompiling it would be the right course of action but I haven't had the time (also not sure where all the sources are). On a contrary note, my first USB-Wacom pads STILL work after 20 years, it's not just software but a vendor that cared about it's software long enough to make 64bit drivers that still works. As you said, the vendor isn't interested in upgrading the software and there is where the blame is, MS tries to keep backwards compatibility but some things has had to go for performance and/or security reasons over the years and those usually broke rules (or were tied to HW, Linux has dropped 386 and 486 after all).
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    I've recently seen code from 1998 running on a 64-bit Windows Server 2016 cloud-hosted virtual machine just fine.
sentientslug 4y ago
Respectfully you have no idea what you're talking about. These half-million dollar devices (often more expensive than that) were the ONLY option at the time to perform certain kinds of experiments. Not exactly a choice.
- dahdum 4y ago
  So the vendor refuses to sell a support plan and requires you to purchase a brand new machine? That does sound monopolistic and abusive but I don’t see how Microsoft is to blame.
  - sentientslug 4y ago
    Basically, yes this is how it goes. And I agree that it's not Microsoft's fault.
- vouwfietsman 4y ago
  Respectfully you have no idea how complex an OS is and how completely nonsensical it is to expect 100% backwards compatibility for 2 decades later. There is a reason software gets sunsetted: most of it is irrelevant 20 years later and holding on to it makes everything much more complex than it already is. Especially for a consumer OS like windows, where you can expect the vast majority of people to upgrade. If this is some multi-million dollar device then maybe keeping it up to date with windows should have been part of the deal... Did you know windows is basically known for excellent backwards compatibility? https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii-chicken-and-egg-problems/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/24/strategy-letter-ii...
  - sentientslug 4y ago
    I'm not sure what part of my comment you're responding to because I wasn't referring to anything related to backwards compatibility. I was responding to the other commenter asserting that biotech companies have somehow made an incorrect judgement call by purchasing certain types of instrument. In reality these vendors assume you're going to keep the system air-gapped forever, some don't even (officially) support joining their control PCs to a domain. Anecdotally I've found that in a lot of cases unless you're dealing with strange custom drivers usually the vendor-provided PCs can be replaced with new computers running the same control software (sometimes in compatibility mode if needed) and still operate the instrument.
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
As a device builder creating those machines (well, industrial CNCs, but similar idea) I don't have many options when trying to build something with a useful life of 20+ years. I just received an order for another machine in a lineup that started with some using Heidenhain controls from the early 90s, we ripped out those controllers and replaced them with models running a custom black box RTOS based on Motorola DSP 56002 chips on ISA cards that were on Windows 98 and Windows XP motherboards, then that company got aquihired and they stopped making those cards, there was a brief foray into PowerPC and now we're installing Arm processors running surprisingly modern Linux 4.9 with preempt_rt. We're talking to these motion controllers using VB6 running on a bunch of Windows 7 PCs with a few compatibility hacks enabled, and I'm installing new fanless PCs with Windows 10 LTSC 21H2, which claims support until 2032-01-13. If it's not running those relatively public, well-documented systems, it's likely a PLC or robot containing a proprietary ASIC running some WindRiver RTOS, and completely subject to the whims and survivability of that product line. I love my customer's maintenance department, they're unusually thorough and attentive to preventative maintenance, greasing and oiling and replacing wear items, root-causing failures and keeping the machines in good working order for decades. But when you keep fixing each individual small part that breaks, eventually the market moves on and you have to throw all the replaceable parts away and start over. The process requirements haven't changed, the weldments and castings aren't broken, it's just that you can't replace a failed servo drive or Core 2 motherboard or ISA card because the supply chain gave up on them 10 years ago. There's no great advantage of Windows 10 LTSC and a 64-bit Arm controller over Windows 98 with 56002 ISA cards except that I can buy the former today and I can't buy the latter because no one makes them anymore. There is no control OS or hardware supply chain that lasts as long as military, industrial, or scientific equipment can be made to last. Fanuc and others try with massive vertical integration and a "never deprecate anything" mantra, but they don't run their own semiconductor fabs to guarantee production of chips for stuff that doesn't keep up with the rat race. Yes, I'll keep supporting my company's gear for as long as possible, but sometimes the answer is that I need to throw away 4 working servomotors, drives, a controller, and a PC, and invest 600 engineering hours into making this machine do the exact same thing it did last week, because that 5th drive blew the IGBT and took out the controller and no one can get a replacement. Customers don't like to issue $100k invoices when a $1k subcomponent dies...because that $1k quote was from 2008, and it's now literally priceless.

morpheos137 4y ago

Sounds like the writer of the software is equally at fault, and the sysadmin could have been more creative. I see no reason why the data collection can't be managed by a highly portable console app running inside a VM or dos emulator or the legacy PC can't be kept behind a firewall that only lets data out.

jackvalentine 4y ago
> I see no reason why the data collection can't be managed by a highly portable console app running inside a VM or dos emulator or the legacy PC can't be kept behind a firewall that only lets data out. Having been in this exact situation at a research institution with expensive equipment and Windows XP only software before - support. Helpdesk and lower levels of back-end only pay a certain amount so turn over constantly, and “those PCs have had hot glue put in their ethernet jacks and USB ports and burning CDs is the only way to get data out” is a hell of a lot easier to reliably keep going than some esoteric system of VMs and firewall rules. The people in the lab have way more tolerance for having to burn CDs than they do for firewall changes stuffing up their process and taking a while to figure out and resolve!
SlickNixon 4y ago
>or the legacy PC can't be kept behind a firewall that only lets data out Only because I had the same thought and I feel like you might know more, is there an example of software that does this securely?
- morpheos137 4y ago
  OpenBSD. The documentation is good too. The social engineering of getting campus IT to approve your solution might be harder though.

mrdatawolf 4y ago

Your vendor didn't provide you with free updates to match changes in the larger OS ecosystem. Then you get mad at the larger OS for not supporting the niche software of your vendor. BTW neither the vendor nor the OS maker is the problem. You are. Your entitlement that the world should grind to a halt to wait for you is.

asdff 4y ago
Is having a unix philosophy on software entitled? Then I guess I am then.
- oblio 4y ago
  Unix philosophy on software ? Let's be real here. Command line Posix stuffgenerally works and Linux stuff works because Linus insists it should. But what about the whole glibc debacle from about a decade ago? Entire distros broke compatibility. And let's not get started with *nix GUI framewors and apps, those break compat more often than I change my socks :-)))

lozenge 4y ago

The only way to continue supporting all those things is to never change anything. Even if all the APIs are still around, are they going to be bug-compatible?

908B64B197 4y ago

> and for reasons only known to microsoft, this software is no longer able to run on modern windows. The reason is most likely... because the driver relies on APIs that were insecure and removed in the XP-Vista transition! > The vendor for the instrument has no incentive to update that software either; they'd rather you dish out another half million dollars for a new sorter. > There are hundreds of instruments like this in any given research institute, all because Microsoft decided unilaterally that software that ran fine 20 years ago is clearly useless and doesn't need to run anymore on modern hardware that receives security updates. So it's Microsoft's fault that the vendor won't update it's software? Didn't this "elite institution" get a support contract for the machine? Would they expect the driver and software to still work if it had been written for a PowerMac G5, running Mac OS X Panther? Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux?

midoridensha 4y ago
>Would a binary compiled 20 years ago even have a remote chance of running on Linux? Yes. As long as it includes all its dependencies, it should work because the kernel never deprecates system calls.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  What about the ABI?
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    What about it?
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      I don't think kernel ABI is compatible between versions. So unless the vendor distributes the source for the driver interfacing with the machine, it shouldn't run on modern releases.

tangjurine 4y ago

My friend was working at Microsoft on JavaScript engine bugs for Internet explorer last year. He was telling me they had a contract with a large insurance company to support ie, and that because he found out about the contract his job feel a little less useless. So it seems like to me they do care about legacy support. Maybe you just need to pay for it