5 ms·

while i respect that you personally are constrained in this respect, support for XP has ended. Chronologically, google inc was founded ~3 years before XP was re

while i respect that you personally are constrained in this respect, support for XP has ended. Chronologically, google inc was founded ~3 years before XP was released and it wasn't mainstream on inception. So the point being when XP was released like 13 years ago, it enjoyed mass audience. Now there have been several iterations of windows and according to mores law 10 years forward see more innovation than the preceding 100. So I would allege, that it is actually absurd that you could be angry that the site you are using is degrading a little less gracefully than you would hope to put pressure on you and your company to use something that was created recently. Conversely, I wouldn't fault the phone company if my Nokia brick phone wasn't fully supported, while I loved playing snake, times change.

DanBC 12y ago
I would fault my phone company if I could no longer make and recieve phone calls and send and receive SMS text messages. And it's not just about stuff not working on simple machines - many sites are awful to use on recent smart phones and recent OSs because they have only been tested on local networks on development machines. No one has tested them on normal machines.
- acdha 12y ago
  > I would fault my phone company if I could no longer make and recieve phone calls and send and receive SMS text messages. We went through this when cell networks decommissioned analog service and again when the early digital stuff was phased out. It turned out not to be such a big deal – once the phone company hit you with a higher bill to support the old equipment, almost everyone quickly decided learning how to use a new phone wasn't so bad. This is similar: companies are hoping that the rest of us will subsidize their IT decisions with increased development and support costs. The difference is that most places lack a mechanism to pass along those costs so they're rarely confronted with a cost comparison.
klez 12y ago
About your nokia example, maybe I'm mistaken but wouldn't it be like you couldn't send a proper SMS without upgrading your phone?
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  Yes, you can't send an SMS with an "attached" video with your phone unless you update to a phone with a video camera ... you can still do the SMS but the side-channel and video capabilities are missing.

DanBC 12y ago

I would fault my phone company if I could no longer make and recieve phone calls and send and receive SMS text messages. And it's not just about stuff not working on simple machines - many sites are awful to use on recent smart phones and recent OSs because they have only been tested on local networks on development machines. No one has tested them on normal machines.

acdha 12y ago
> I would fault my phone company if I could no longer make and recieve phone calls and send and receive SMS text messages. We went through this when cell networks decommissioned analog service and again when the early digital stuff was phased out. It turned out not to be such a big deal – once the phone company hit you with a higher bill to support the old equipment, almost everyone quickly decided learning how to use a new phone wasn't so bad. This is similar: companies are hoping that the rest of us will subsidize their IT decisions with increased development and support costs. The difference is that most places lack a mechanism to pass along those costs so they're rarely confronted with a cost comparison.

klez 12y ago

About your nokia example, maybe I'm mistaken but wouldn't it be like you couldn't send a proper SMS without upgrading your phone?

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Yes, you can't send an SMS with an "attached" video with your phone unless you update to a phone with a video camera ... you can still do the SMS but the side-channel and video capabilities are missing.