3 ms·
So, not wanting to maintain two separate codebases is laziness? How about the ROI on such a solution is hideously low.
by pionar 13y ago
So, not wanting to maintain two separate codebases is laziness? How about the ROI on such a solution is hideously low.
- laumars 13y agoWhat about the code base we all have to maintain supporting those shit browsers? Plus I doubt it's that fundamental a change to the code base. Just point IE to a few newer DLLs and write a different deployment package. If MS are able to update .NET, DirectX and all their other libraries and maintain backwards compatibility then I'm sure they could with IE as well. There's no real technical reason hampering them, just a lack of incentive and plenty of excuses. And the ROI point is moot because it's already been pointed out that all of the other big browsers still support XP. Every 3 years its the same bullshit, MS release a new version of Windows and suddenly all their new software cannot run on their older versions of Windows - as if this new OS magically changes the way how Trident works. As someone who's hacked his way around some of Windows internals, I don't buy MSs marketing, it's just a ploy to sell more copies of their latest OS.