5 ms·

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 yo

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.

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.