| Author |
Message |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Grinch wrote: | 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... |
You really have no idea how many businesses depend on old, unsupported software. And there is lots of unsupported software out there, and a lot of people are using it in a home situation as well.
And if other software you want to use as well only works on the latest version of windows, because that software is still supported, you have a problem. And most Windows users are not waiting for problems like that. It's exactly the reason most windows users don't want to switch to another Operating System, because they expect their old software to work.
I would agree that Microsoft should stop backwards compatibility, but I really believe they can't afford to make that decision and upset their users.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4569
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Grinch wrote: | | 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 one of the reasons why I am still using Windows XP and not Vista. It's also the reason why I use a 32bit OS instead of a 64bit OS.
However, not everyone thinks about their software compatibility. Many people just want the new OS already and just expect their old software to work.
_________________
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: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spock wrote: | | The Grinch wrote: | 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... |
You really have no idea how many businesses depend on old, unsupported software. And there is lots of unsupported software out there, and a lot of people are using it in a home situation as well. |
I currently work for a company that uses one piece of software that is most likely unsupported in this version but we see no point in upgrading software or hardware. You really feel that the people using said software doesn't already have a system fully capable of running their unsupported software?
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: |
I currently work for a company that uses one piece of software that is most likely unsupported in this version but we see no point in upgrading software or hardware. You really feel that the people using said software doesn't already have a system fully capable of running their unsupported software? |
They do, but most companies (at least the managers) seem to love upgrading their hardware (and the OS) although they actually don't need faster computers.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 732
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spock wrote: | | mcwkm wrote: |
I currently work for a company that uses one piece of software that is most likely unsupported in this version but we see no point in upgrading software or hardware. You really feel that the people using said software doesn't already have a system fully capable of running their unsupported software? |
They do, but most companies (at least the managers) seem to love upgrading their hardware (and the OS) although they actually don't need faster computers. |
In a properly managed company upgrading equipment has purpose.
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Xtreme $niper
Lifeless Person
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 1766
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say a pretty neat implementation of backwards compatibility support would be something similar to CrossOver for the Mac. It uses Wine and it's own magic to run Windows applications on the Mac as if it were native.
It's nifty because you can install a certain "bottle", which can be set up to be like Windows 98, 2000, XP, etc. according to what system your program would run best on.
What this does is leave the backwards compatibility issue out of the hands of the OS developers, and leaves it up to a third party to create in the form of some sort of software. Apple has no need to support running Windows applications within OS X, but sure enough, CrossOver runs many programs very well (I play Team Fortress Classic under Steam flawlessly all the time) without ever having to boot into another OS.
So, in my head at least, I think the same kind of logic can be applied to Windows within Windows. If someone really needs legacy support, they can simply install a "bottle" of an older version of windows and run their software in that.
_________________
Come visit Shattered Abstracts! (Photoblog!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 732
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah I don't understand why emulation of the old software hasn't replaced the need for legacy support on Windows platforms
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Jacky
3.14159265358979323846264
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 4175
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Grinch wrote: | 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. |
Most people accept new versions of softwares, but not games.
Especially when games are getting more and more crappy as they change developers.
_________________
| 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 |
|
| |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: | | In a properly managed company upgrading equipment has purpose. |
True, but in practice most companies are poorly-managed, especially when it comes to decisions like upgrading all systems. A lot of managers don't have much technical knowledge and they think newer systems are always better than older ones. (Even if the old ones are more than adequate for the task at hand)
| mcwkm wrote: | | Yeah I don't understand why emulation of the old software hasn't replaced the need for legacy support on Windows platforms |
Because it's quite complex. A lot of things are badly documented, and some software out there is using unsupported function Microsoft hasn't even documented at all.
So even if Microsoft is going to develop it itself, they're probably still missing a lot of information, and it is lots of work.
The wine project, some of you are using that as an example, exists since 1993. And although it is compatible with more and more programs every release, a lot of software still doesn't work. The question is if Microsoft is willing to go to that trouble. All the resources put in to a compatibility layer like that can't be put in the development of a new version of their operating system. And although it sucks, I really believe just keeping legacy code in the OS will be the best way to go.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 732
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spock wrote: | | mcwkm wrote: | | In a properly managed company upgrading equipment has purpose. |
True, but in practice most companies are poorly-managed, especially when it comes to decisions like upgrading all systems. A lot of managers don't have much technical knowledge and they think newer systems are always better than older ones. (Even if the old ones are more than adequate for the task at hand) |
Then they shouldn't be in a position to be managing the company. If they do not have the proper knowledge to manage their company, they should not be managing it and should have a different role or none at all in the company.
| spock wrote: |
| mcwkm wrote: | | Yeah I don't understand why emulation of the old software hasn't replaced the need for legacy support on Windows platforms |
Because it's quite complex. A lot of things are badly documented, and some software out there is using unsupported function Microsoft hasn't even documented at all.
So even if Microsoft is going to develop it itself, they're probably still missing a lot of information, and it is lots of work.
The wine project, some of you are using that as an example, exists since 1993. And although it is compatible with more and more programs every release, a lot of software still doesn't work. The question is if Microsoft is willing to go to that trouble. All the resources put in to a compatibility layer like that can't be put in the development of a new version of their operating system. And although it sucks, I really believe just keeping legacy code in the OS will be the best way to go. |
Really so instead of having a new OS that is actually good, you would rather have a half-baked concoction that supports your old software rather than the new OS being shipped with easy to use emulation software that would support most legacy software.
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
spock
Lifeless Person
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 3120
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcwkm wrote: |
Then they shouldn't be in a position to be managing the company. If they do not have the proper knowledge to manage their company, they should not be managing it and should have a different role or none at all in the company. |
| mcwkm wrote: |
Really so instead of having a new OS that is actually good, you would rather have a half-baked concoction that supports your old software rather than the new OS being shipped with easy to use emulation software that would support most legacy software. |
No, you missed my point. Let's put it like this: Developing the emulation software would take a lot of time and resources. So if they would develop it, they would have less resources to put in developing the new Operating system.
And I would rather have a half-baked concoction that supports my old software than a emulator layer and a new OS that sucks because that couldn't really finish it because the emulation layer took a lot of time.
_________________
My new site |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mcwkm
Lifeless Person
Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 732
Location: ct
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spock wrote: |
No, you missed my point. Let's put it like this: Developing the emulation software would take a lot of time and resources. So if they would develop it, they would have less resources to put in developing the new Operating system.
And I would rather have a half-baked concoction that supports my old software than a emulator layer and a new OS that sucks because that couldn't really finish it because the emulation layer took a lot of time. |
Granted it may take a lot more resources to develop that but who says new versions of software shouldn't take a long time to develop. And it's not like Microsoft did not take their time with developing or just releasing Vista.
Just because the emulation layer would take more time to develop then keeping legacy support, you would rather use worse software? That makes no sense as a consumer. You should want the best available product and you should not be considering the development time when it comes to new versions. If your looking at this from Microsoft's point of view, no you really don't want to waste the money developing something new when you can just make a few changes slap a redesigned logo and new version name and call it the new version, it saves them money and time doing this but that doesn't mean anyone at Microsoft would even want to purchase the new version.
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
ClickFanatic
Est. 2005
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 4569
Location: 37°45'18.24"N 14°59'42.9"E
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can't have your cake and eat it too in this case, I think.
Software companies have to deliver fast in order to stay up to date with new technologies. Not being able to do so may have greater impact than not providing a 100% compatibility layer. Not that it will be left out entirely, but there will be a compromise on backward compatibility.
_________________
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: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ClickFanatic wrote: | You can't have your cake and eat it too in this case, I think.
Software companies have to deliver fast in order to stay up to date with new technologies. Not being able to do so may have greater impact than not providing a 100% compatibility layer. Not that it will be left out entirely, but there will be a compromise on backward compatibility. |
Software companies can have a project worked on that won't be featured in the next release. They can anticipate something new taking longer then the next release of the product and have it being worked on for future releases.
There isn't 100% backwards compatibility now anyway so it would be interesting to see the percentage of pre-vista software that is compatible on vista and wine. You have to remember wine does not have access to microsoft documentation and therefore microsoft should be able to develop a better product in terms of % of software that is compatible.
_________________
http://mydorksite.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
|
Forum FAQs 
Knowledgebase 
Memberlist 
Usergroups 
Hosting
Register
Donate 
Profile 
Log in 
