>15 years of backwards compatibility [...] is unreasonable to say the least As a Windows user, it's sad that so many people think that way nowadays. I've enco

>15 years of backwards compatibility [...] is unreasonable to say the least As a Windows user, it's sad that so many people think that way nowadays. I've encountered one DOS program from the early 90s that doesn't run anymore because it used its own custom memory management which newer systems don't allow, but that one was later re-released in an updated version that still works today. And there were one or two late-90s Windows programs that no longer run either because they have 16-bit components or depended on some then-standard now long-gone libraries to be on the system, but those run in a VM. Other than that, there is plenty of software dating back to the 90s, some to the 80s, that mostly still works fine. It doesn't need constant maintenance and updates. It worked about 30 years ago and still works today and should still work tomorrow. You'll find even older legacy code in major organizations that's still chugging along. That's hard to find in modern software. Now everyone always has to have the latest thing and it has to be updated almost every single day just to keep a massive chain of transitive dependencies from collapsing out from under it. I guess that's why people get rude and ask whether a project is 'dead' even though patches have been released for it multiple times within the last 10 years.