5 ms·

> The backwards compatibility though is one of the major features of windows as an OS. It is. That's even been stated by MSFT leadership time and time again.

> The backwards compatibility though is one of the major features of windows as an OS. It is. That's even been stated by MSFT leadership time and time again. But at what point does that become a liability? I'm arguing that point was about 15-20 years ago.

dgfitz 2y ago
New frameworks have vulnerabilities. Old OS flavors have vulnerabilities. OpenSSh keeps making the news for vulnerabilities. I’d argue that software is never finished, only abandoned, and I absolutely did not generate that quote. Stop. Just stop.
- anthk 2y ago
  >OpenSSH Yes, just stop... with the bullshit. OpenBSD didn't make vulnerabilities. Foreign Linux distros (OpenSSH comes from OpenBSD, and they release a portable tgz too) adding non-core features and libraries did.
efitz 2y ago
There is another very active article on HN today about the launch of the new Apple iPhone 16 models. The top discussion thread on that post is about “my old iPhone $version is good enough, why would I upgrade”. It’s funny, if you ask tech people, a lot fall into the “I have to have the latest and greatest” but also a lot fall into the “I’ll upgrade when they pry the rusting hardware from my cold dead hands”. For Microsoft, the driver for backwards compatibility is economic: Microsoft wants people to buy new Windows, but in order to do that, they have to (1) convince customers that all their existing stuff is going to continue to work, and (2) convince developers that they don’t have to rewrite (or even recompile) all their stuff whenever there’s a new version of Windows. Objectively, it seems like Microsoft made the right decision, based on revenue over the decades. Full disclosure: I worked for Microsoft for 17 years, mostly in and around Windows, but left over a decade ago.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > It’s funny, if you ask tech people, a lot fall into the “I have to have the latest and greatest” This is almost never a technical decision, but a 'showing off' decision IMO.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It's a "fun toys" decision.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      Often one and the same.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > It’s funny, if you ask tech people, a lot fall into the “I have to have the latest and greatest” but also a lot fall into the “I’ll upgrade when they pry the rusting hardware from my cold dead hands”. Not concerning the iPhone, but in general tech people tend to be very vocal about not updating when they feel that the new product introduces some new spying features over the old one, or when they feel that the new product worsens what they love about the existing product (there, their taste is often very different from the "typical customer").
  - efitz 2y ago
    Great related thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41492251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41492251
wvenable 2y ago
It is not a liability because most of what you are talking about is just compatibility not backwards compatibility. What makes an operating system Windows? Fundamentally it is something that runs Windows apps. Windows apps existed 15-20 years ago as much as they exist today. If you make an OS that doesn't run Windows apps then it just isn't Windows anymore. The little weird things that exist due to backwards compatibility really don't matter. They're not harming anything.

dgfitz 2y ago

New frameworks have vulnerabilities. Old OS flavors have vulnerabilities. OpenSSh keeps making the news for vulnerabilities. I’d argue that software is never finished, only abandoned, and I absolutely did not generate that quote. Stop. Just stop.

anthk 2y ago
>OpenSSH Yes, just stop... with the bullshit. OpenBSD didn't make vulnerabilities. Foreign Linux distros (OpenSSH comes from OpenBSD, and they release a portable tgz too) adding non-core features and libraries did.

efitz 2y ago

There is another very active article on HN today about the launch of the new Apple iPhone 16 models. The top discussion thread on that post is about “my old iPhone $version is good enough, why would I upgrade”. It’s funny, if you ask tech people, a lot fall into the “I have to have the latest and greatest” but also a lot fall into the “I’ll upgrade when they pry the rusting hardware from my cold dead hands”. For Microsoft, the driver for backwards compatibility is economic: Microsoft wants people to buy new Windows, but in order to do that, they have to (1) convince customers that all their existing stuff is going to continue to work, and (2) convince developers that they don’t have to rewrite (or even recompile) all their stuff whenever there’s a new version of Windows. Objectively, it seems like Microsoft made the right decision, based on revenue over the decades. Full disclosure: I worked for Microsoft for 17 years, mostly in and around Windows, but left over a decade ago.

ruthmarx 2y ago
> It’s funny, if you ask tech people, a lot fall into the “I have to have the latest and greatest” This is almost never a technical decision, but a 'showing off' decision IMO.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It's a "fun toys" decision.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    Often one and the same.
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> It’s funny, if you ask tech people, a lot fall into the “I have to have the latest and greatest” but also a lot fall into the “I’ll upgrade when they pry the rusting hardware from my cold dead hands”. Not concerning the iPhone, but in general tech people tend to be very vocal about not updating when they feel that the new product introduces some new spying features over the old one, or when they feel that the new product worsens what they love about the existing product (there, their taste is often very different from the "typical customer").
- efitz 2y ago
  Great related thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41492251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41492251

wvenable 2y ago

It is not a liability because most of what you are talking about is just compatibility not backwards compatibility. What makes an operating system Windows? Fundamentally it is something that runs Windows apps. Windows apps existed 15-20 years ago as much as they exist today. If you make an OS that doesn't run Windows apps then it just isn't Windows anymore. The little weird things that exist due to backwards compatibility really don't matter. They're not harming anything.