3 ms·
They most likely spent 2 years porting the code to ARM. Can you imagine the decade of legacy code they had to wade through to get that done?
by edandersen 14y ago
They most likely spent 2 years porting the code to ARM. Can you imagine the decade of legacy code they had to wade through to get that done?
- vacri 14y agoGood point. This reminds me of a previous workplace where we made EEG software - basically 20-odd squiggly lines progressing across a screen. Going from nothing to version 1 is huge. At first you don't record EEG, now you see the squiggly lines. Going from version 1 to version 2 is not so huge. The squiggly lines are still there (a little prettier) and there's a ton of analysis tools. Far, far more work went into version 2, but take a punter's opinion and it'll be 'meh, not much'. Little change in basic UI does not mean little functionality added.
- chris_wot 14y agoSee, I just don't get that. We aren't talking about an OS kernel here, we're talking about a graphics toolkit. What is it about their libraries that weren't capable of running on different versions of Windows capable of running on different architecture? Unless, of course, the issue is in porting the toolkit...
- ygra 14y agoRemember the Excel calculation bug introduced in 2007? That was because of assembly code that only then got updated to 32 bit. You can be fairly sure that Office is a lot more than just a graphics toolkit.