4 ms·

Seems to me they should pull an Apple. Run everything old in some "rosetta" like system and then make something 100% new and try to get people to switch, like s

by nox101 2y ago

Seems to me they should pull an Apple. Run everything old in some "rosetta" like system and then make something 100% new and try to get people to switch, like say no new updates except security updates for the old system so that apps are incentivized to use the new one.

mepian 2y ago
Carbon is a better Apple-related comparison since it's basically a cleaned-up version of the classic Mac OS API as a library that ran on both Mac OS X and classic.
- nullindividual 2y ago
  Win32 runs on Linux by way of SQL Server.
  - chem83 2y ago
    uhhhhhh yes, but not really? All Win32 calls are intercepted and handled by SQLPAL, instead. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/blog/2016/12/16/sql-server-on-linux-how-introduction https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/blog/2016/12/16/s...
wannacboatmovie 2y ago
You left out the important part: abandon the Rosetta-like system a mere few years later once you've lured them in, then fuck everyone over by breaking backwards compatibility every OS release. Apple really has the "extinguish" part nailed down.
wvenable 2y ago
Nobody wants something 100% new. Users don't want it. Developers don't want it. You can make a new OS but then you'll have zero developers and zero users. Yet this fantasy exists. And as soon as you make something new, it'll be old, and people will call for its replacement.
- wannacboatmovie 2y ago
  People live under the delusion that OS X was "100% new" when in fact it was warmed-over NeXTSTEP from 1989. Most of them probably have never seen or heard of a NeXT workstation. To reinforce how much people hate "100% new" how long has Microsoft been working on ReFS? 20 years? The safest most boring job in the world must be NTFS developer.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    The OS X story is even worse than that. When Apple first released OS X to developers, like Adobe, they balked. They weren't going to port their Mac applications to this "new" operating system. Apple had to take another year to develop the Carbon APIs so Mac developers could more easily port their apps over.
- nox101 2y ago
  Some users clearly wanted it because Apple did it and are doing just fine. Users and business want to stop being hacked. Windows will never achieve this without starting over.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    Apple did nothing of the sort. NeXTStep was already old and established, then they had to add a whole classic compatibility API layer because developers balked and they had to change the UI to make it more classic Mac OS like. They only bought NeXT because they failed at building their own next-generation replacement for Mac OS at the time Microsoft succeeded with Windows NT. > Users and business want to stop being hacked. Windows will never achieve this without starting over. That's not true at all.
    - nox101 2y ago
      So what if Apple bought NextStep? They still switched all their uses over from OS-9 to completely different OS-X and all the software migrated or was left behind

by nox101 2y ago

mepian 2y ago

Carbon is a better Apple-related comparison since it's basically a cleaned-up version of the classic Mac OS API as a library that ran on both Mac OS X and classic.

nullindividual 2y ago
Win32 runs on Linux by way of SQL Server.
- chem83 2y ago
  uhhhhhh yes, but not really? All Win32 calls are intercepted and handled by SQLPAL, instead. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/blog/2016/12/16/sql-server-on-linux-how-introduction https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sql-server/blog/2016/12/16/s...

wannacboatmovie 2y ago

You left out the important part: abandon the Rosetta-like system a mere few years later once you've lured them in, then fuck everyone over by breaking backwards compatibility every OS release. Apple really has the "extinguish" part nailed down.

wvenable 2y ago

Nobody wants something 100% new. Users don't want it. Developers don't want it. You can make a new OS but then you'll have zero developers and zero users. Yet this fantasy exists. And as soon as you make something new, it'll be old, and people will call for its replacement.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago
People live under the delusion that OS X was "100% new" when in fact it was warmed-over NeXTSTEP from 1989. Most of them probably have never seen or heard of a NeXT workstation. To reinforce how much people hate "100% new" how long has Microsoft been working on ReFS? 20 years? The safest most boring job in the world must be NTFS developer.
- wvenable 2y ago
  The OS X story is even worse than that. When Apple first released OS X to developers, like Adobe, they balked. They weren't going to port their Mac applications to this "new" operating system. Apple had to take another year to develop the Carbon APIs so Mac developers could more easily port their apps over.
nox101 2y ago
Some users clearly wanted it because Apple did it and are doing just fine. Users and business want to stop being hacked. Windows will never achieve this without starting over.
- wvenable 2y ago
  Apple did nothing of the sort. NeXTStep was already old and established, then they had to add a whole classic compatibility API layer because developers balked and they had to change the UI to make it more classic Mac OS like. They only bought NeXT because they failed at building their own next-generation replacement for Mac OS at the time Microsoft succeeded with Windows NT. > Users and business want to stop being hacked. Windows will never achieve this without starting over. That's not true at all.
  - nox101 2y ago
    So what if Apple bought NextStep? They still switched all their uses over from OS-9 to completely different OS-X and all the software migrated or was left behind