4 ms·

> if MS breaks too much or forgets to add compatibility modes/quirks, said enterprise customers are going to be pretty pissed because that can sometimes mean th

> if MS breaks too much or forgets to add compatibility modes/quirks, said enterprise customers are going to be pretty pissed because that can sometimes mean they have to buy new machines costing many millions of dollars The obvious solution is to leave those enterprise customers behind on the legacy edition of Windows and launching something new. But Microsoft seems incapable of going to market with something new also. They created Windows 10x, and then went and merged the new parts back into the legacy platform.

kitsunesoba 3y ago
It's strange that MS has never did what Apple did with the OS 9 → OS X transition, starting with a fresh foundation and making a clean break from the predecessor by way of a well-integrated "Classic" mode that seamlessly runs legacy applications in a "borderless" VM. The most natural time to have done this would've probably been going from XP → Vista/7, which broke a number of old things anyway. For all that switching mainline Windows over to the NT kernel in 2k/XP improved Windows, the benefit wasn't as great as it could've been if they'd been able to unshackle the OS from backwards compatibility with all the preceding Windows/DOS stuff.
- wolpoli 3y ago
  Windows 10x was rumored to run Win32 programs within a single-combined container for backward compatibility purpose too.
- creatonez 3y ago
  Keep in mind that Apple didn't have much to lose, in the years leading up to OS X they were scrambling for market share lost to Windows 95, and already in a frenzy over a failed modernization attempt (Copland) that was intending to maintain backwards compatibility. They were truly desperate, on the verge of going bankrupt under a "corporate rehabilitator" CEO with no Steve Jobs in sight. Microsoft had a good thing going, with the massive success of MS-DOS and Windows 95 it was imperative that the next generation consumer OS, Windows 2000, could run programs from their existing well-respected platform without users noticing the gap. (With OS X, you noticed the gap -- totally different UI style when in Classic Environment, and the Carbon API for easy porting was a mess that went unadopted by developers)
- hakfoo 3y ago
  Windows 7 had that "XP Mode" feature where it would try to run things in a VM, but it was an unloved stepchild. Really, they could have done a lot better-- a VM jukebox with everything from DOS 3.3 onwards available could have made the "most compatible Windows ever"-- even old software that assumed a 4.77MHz CPU clock could have been rigged to run natively.

kitsunesoba 3y ago

It's strange that MS has never did what Apple did with the OS 9 → OS X transition, starting with a fresh foundation and making a clean break from the predecessor by way of a well-integrated "Classic" mode that seamlessly runs legacy applications in a "borderless" VM. The most natural time to have done this would've probably been going from XP → Vista/7, which broke a number of old things anyway. For all that switching mainline Windows over to the NT kernel in 2k/XP improved Windows, the benefit wasn't as great as it could've been if they'd been able to unshackle the OS from backwards compatibility with all the preceding Windows/DOS stuff.

wolpoli 3y ago
Windows 10x was rumored to run Win32 programs within a single-combined container for backward compatibility purpose too.
creatonez 3y ago
Keep in mind that Apple didn't have much to lose, in the years leading up to OS X they were scrambling for market share lost to Windows 95, and already in a frenzy over a failed modernization attempt (Copland) that was intending to maintain backwards compatibility. They were truly desperate, on the verge of going bankrupt under a "corporate rehabilitator" CEO with no Steve Jobs in sight. Microsoft had a good thing going, with the massive success of MS-DOS and Windows 95 it was imperative that the next generation consumer OS, Windows 2000, could run programs from their existing well-respected platform without users noticing the gap. (With OS X, you noticed the gap -- totally different UI style when in Classic Environment, and the Carbon API for easy porting was a mess that went unadopted by developers)
hakfoo 3y ago
Windows 7 had that "XP Mode" feature where it would try to run things in a VM, but it was an unloved stepchild. Really, they could have done a lot better-- a VM jukebox with everything from DOS 3.3 onwards available could have made the "most compatible Windows ever"-- even old software that assumed a 4.77MHz CPU clock could have been rigged to run natively.