| Author |
Message |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Xtreme $niper wrote: |
Similarly, I'd say that I would be willing to lose some backward compatibility with certain software if big enough changes were made to Windows to justify it. Fact is, almost all the programs that I use on Windows are maintained by active developers that would not just sit around with a non-working version of their product. And anyone running an unsupported program nowadays probably has more issues to deal with like security vulnerabilities due to running an application that is no longer being patched. |
You would be surprised about how many companies (but also individuals) still use software that either isn't being developed anymore or is to expensive to buy updates.
Sometimes companies use old software just because they're used to it.
Another reason to use undeveloped software could be to retain compatibility to other old software.
Just look around inside companies, schools and government agencies and you'll see what I mean.
I believe you're right, but you can't just assume people will suck it up. I think the only way Microsoft could make drastic changes is to change the windows brandname and make it clear their new OS won't support most older software made for Windows.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7982
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Microsoft could make a compatibility layer for older applications that isn't loaded on default. Basically see it as an interface between the new and old system. Pretty much wine for windows I guess.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Well, Microsoft could make a compatibility layer for older applications that isn't loaded on default. Basically see it as an interface between the new and old system. Pretty much wine for windows I guess. |
They could. And I think that's the only solution. However, because some programs do things on their own or don't use the documented API it isn't garuanteed every program would work.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7982
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uhm, keep in mind if microsoft would make a wine like application that they'd get everything working in a fairly short time most likely since they kind a happen to have the source code of everything they make 
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme $niper
Lifeless Person
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 1766
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's an interesting option. I believe Apple does this with OS X. When installing OS X, you have the option to install two things: X11 and OS Classic support.
If you know you're going to be running programs that only run on OS 9 or older, then you need to install the optional support frameworks. It's as simple as that. So I guess, if properly implemented, Microsoft could theoretically do this as well.
But yeah, spock, you're right. I can't assume people would be prepared to suck it up. I guess that's exactly why Microsoft is stuck in this particular situation. Still, I put some, if not most, of the fault on them because the only reason why the people expect their products to work in this way is because they conditioned their own customers to come to expect full backwards compatibility, for better or for worse. And that's why when Vista came around and you couldn't simply run old applications on it without checking for compatibility first, people started freaking out.
I think it's time for a new parallel product release. Some brand new OS written from the ground up, released simultaneously with Windows releases until all the problems are worked out, and then Windows should be phased out.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4569
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme $niper wrote: | | I think it's time for a new parallel product release. Some brand new OS written from the ground up, released simultaneously with Windows releases until all the problems are worked out, and then Windows should be phased out. |
They exist. Windows is just not phasing out...
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7982
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Xtreme $niper, Linux and BSD are more than up for the job. But don't expect them to become totally user-friendly until they enter the main stream. The main issue of those two is the lack of official drivers and companies threatening to sue developers if they include binary drivers in their releases.
Lets just be happy GNU/Hurd will never make it to the mainstream OS market at this rate
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 732
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Lets just be happy GNU/Hurd will never make it to the mainstream OS market at this rate |
I thought Hurd was suppose to be very good kernel but it's just lacking development and was not user friendly as bsd and linux kernels.
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7982
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Lets just be happy GNU/Hurd will never make it to the mainstream OS market at this rate |
I thought Hurd was suppose to be very good kernel but it's just lacking development and was not user friendly as bsd and linux kernels. |
With the recent changes in the linux and bsd kernel the efficiency advantage Hurd would have is pretty much 0. And really, it took them 15 years to get their process loader working... At this rate it'll be done by the time the sun goes red giant.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky
3.14159265358979323846264
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 4175
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xtreme $niper wrote: | Well I'd just like to say that when a new version of an OS comes out, I'd say if the developer of the program you are using is still active, they will make the application compatible with the new OS if they care about their products or their client base. If the developer is inactive, then you should just stay with your version of Windows.
When Leopard came out, a lot of new apps started being Leopard only. I know this is kind of the opposite scenario, but it's similar. Why should those running older operating system versions be left out of new releases? Because fundamental changes needed to be made to the new OS to make advancements, and the trade-off was losing the ability to allow certain applications to run on older versions of OS X.
Similarly, I'd say that I would be willing to lose some backward compatibility with certain software if big enough changes were made to Windows to justify it. Fact is, almost all the programs that I use on Windows are maintained by active developers that would not just sit around with a non-working version of their product. And anyone running an unsupported program nowadays probably has more issues to deal with like security vulnerabilities due to running an application that is no longer being patched.
All I'm saying is that at a certain point, people should be prepared to suck it up and allow Microsoft to make some core changes to the Windows architecture. Not allowing them to do that will just mean the eventual death of the operating system because people will just moan and groan about how Windows sucks this or that, and they'll all just move over to a new system out of frustration, regardless of if that new system would solve their problems or not. |
I do agree that changes are needed, but for a major operating system like Windows (whether it sucks or not is another topic), changes have to be applied at a slower pace.
Recently I had an urge to play a racing game again, particularly Need For Speed 4: High Stakes. This game was introduced in 1999, and of course it was only stated to be compatible with Windows 95 or 98.
I got that game as a "EA Classics" in 2004 or so. They didn't patch anything when they re-release it, even when the patch is available online. It's just as-it-is.
Supposing Microsoft made huge changes to Windows XP I doubt it would even install, and I don't have a copy of Windows 98 or Windows 95, not even Windows 2000.
| LP-SolidRaven wrote: | | Well, Microsoft could make a compatibility layer for older applications that isn't loaded on default. Basically see it as an interface between the new and old system. Pretty much wine for windows I guess. |
That could be the solution to it, but I would think it's better to be turned on by default. Microsoft won't want 8-year-old kids using Windows to freak out when their old games fail to work and they don't know how to configure it.
_________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
LP-SolidRaven
Evil Belgian Waffle
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 7982
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Make it load when an old windows application is loaded.
_________________
Dilly dally, shilly shally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4569
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there is a sort of 'compatibility layer' in Windows XP which you can load for specific applications.
However, in practice, it's a failure. None of the old software that doesn't work in XP works in any of the compatibility modes. However, software designed for older versions sometimes runs fine without compatibility enabled.
Apparently a compatibility layer is a complicated thing to implement in Windows.
_________________
If you can read this, my post is on an alternating background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 732
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | | Apparently a compatibility layer is a complicated thing to implement in Windows. |
No Microsoft just doesn't need to implement it to be successful so why would they waste resources on it.
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky
3.14159265358979323846264
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 4175
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Well, there is a sort of 'compatibility layer' in Windows XP which you can load for specific applications.
However, in practice, it's a failure. None of the old software that doesn't work in XP works in any of the compatibility modes. However, software designed for older versions sometimes runs fine without compatibility enabled.
Apparently a compatibility layer is a complicated thing to implement in Windows. |
I just came across a software which keeps giving errors in Windows XP, yet ran smoothly totally when I ran it in Windows 98/ME compatibility mode.
_________________
| ClickFanatic wrote: | Your nonsense make my forum visits rather brief, Jacky. It's like:
"Hey look, a reply notification!"
*click* *click*
*reading garbage*
"Oh it was Jacky again..."
*close* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
The Grinch
Lifeless Person
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 6305
Location: Chuck Norris's nightmares.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah but really, if people ware dependent on old software and hardware, would they even be upgrading to a new os that requires new hardware/updated software?
It's really up to the software makers to make their software work on the OS.
I seriously hope that microsoft stops with this backwards compatibility program, and just update everything and create new/fresh technology from new ideas, and make them work well. There is a point to upgrading/updating, and advancing technology.
_________________
http://www.JoshX.com -- my personal site
http://www.damnidunno.com -- i dunno |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledgebase 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
