|
I honestly don't know the answer.
Is it just Windows, or does Linux break past things? OS/2? OS/400? UNIX?
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Que? Linux OS2? Are these recipe acronyms?
This affects all operating systems. Windows 95 2000, MsDOS: and even Vista! 
|
|
|
|
|
peterwithaP wrote: Windows 95 2000, MsDOS: and even Vista!
Those are all MS Operating Systems. Is MS the only one that sucks at this? There are others out there. Are the others as bad?
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
No, others are not as bad.
SUN gives an guarantee, your binary will run on future versions of solaris.
Issues with desktop's are as bad, but you can run old desktop variants on the new system, so it does not hurt as much.
|
|
|
|
|
I am having the concept based on Microsoft Product Lifecycle. The amount of time a product is supported should be going in sync with the operating system lifecycle to ensure that there are lesser number of customer issues and breakdowns reported.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think every company wants to re-certify every app every time MS dumps another OS?
Whether "dump" means "fields", or "EOLs", is an open question.
I have a lot of money invested in apps that I do not want to continue to repurchase for every late OS rev. Sometimes I can stick with the old OS, sometimes I cannot. I appreciate the bloated side of Windows that lets me continue to run them. That part of the pain is worth the money I save, and the access I still have to software that is no longer supported in any form.
Learn to write self marginalizing code!
Call 1-888-BAD-CODE
------------------
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
|
|
|
|
|
RichardM1 wrote: Sometimes I can stick with the old OS, sometimes I cannot.
In what cases can't you?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is the most practical solution, a rolling window in which OS and apps. work together.
Deciding on how big that window is is a tough one though. 5 years? 10 years? 7 years?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a physical limit to the amount of backwards compatibility that can be effectively put into a system. Software expires. Software that is no longer maintained should expire. If your software is broken by a OS upgrade, you should upgrade your software.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: Backwards compatibility is a bane
Not strictly. There should be a stipulated period till which the backward compatibility has to be maintained. Everyone and every enterprise does not have an infinite budget to upgrade their software as and when it is released.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
I don't update an OS unless I want to update the software. I had a windows 95/98 box running for years without an upgrade because the software was designed for it.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
|
yes you are right sofrware that is no longer maintained or not use will expire. but how will decide that?
Ofcouse i can not fully trust MS because they just through new software evety 1 or 2 years.
Viral
YahooID : just_viral
|
|
|
|
|
I had the exact same thought about this matter but then Vista came along and i was seriously starting to reconsider. I'm not the Anti-Vista person but i think that breaking down compatibility hurts both the free & the commercial software community as well. Undoubtably it's good for the software business to purge and clean the dust since it keeps the market going but the implications on the end users are far too great in both organization, management, stability, trainning, ... etc.
Please don't get me wrong here, i'm not saying that compatibility should be all the way back to 8bit ... 
I'm just saying that a crucial computer component like the OS should never go off the market simply because it's OLD. Upgrading may be a forbidden word for many due to the extra work that may be required, so it's my humble opinion that such decisions should never be enforced in the name of 'software expiration' but should always have the consensus of the clients.
Greetings ... 
|
|
|
|
|
I was running (years ago) some comms programs that were written for pdp-11s. To continue to use them, we had VAXs emulating PDPs. This was because the cost of re certifying the comms s/w with the appropriate agency was, well, large, and took multiple years- of real time, not developer time.
So we were tied to 10, 30 and 100 bps comm rates. Good thing no one had much to say. 
Learn to write self marginalizing code!
Call 1-888-BAD-CODE
------------------
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody said that retaining old technology is good (Not in the long run at least) but as you've pointed out, other constraints can make OLD seem more attractive at that time ..... of course, that's my thought ...
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. It is perfectly acceptable for a new OS to break applications as long as this is clearly stated, and suitable replacement apps are available and/or the necessary information to repair them is readily available to developers. "Backwards compatibility" represents a cost that should only be borne by the people who actually need it. It stifles innovation and it creates opportunities for bugs and malware.
--Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
The Sofa is soft and usefull, therefore the sofa is good.
|
|
|
|
|
But it's hard to port, as I'm sure anyone who's moved recently will attest to. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Not very 'back' ward compatible , if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Multiuser / Multitasking Capable / Multi-Environment / Extensive interfaces / (Almost)User-proof packing-unpacking system / Suports wallpapers (not all) / Can be used in conjuction with a wide selection of desktop systems (even "Surface", even hand-held devices) / Improves male-female interaction (depends on users biochemical configuration) ..
Can one wish for more than this?  Lie on the Sofa, the Sofa is good. 
|
|
|
|
|
Eduard Alexandru wrote: Improves male-female interaction
Are you talking about pair programming? That's extreme! 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, The Sofa allows for quick&dirty, just-in-time pair programming (w/ or w/o backup).
The Sofa can't be held responsible if unpredicted variables arises when the users fail to use secured transfer protocol. This seems to be a common isue with teams of 2 or more, single user is safe from this issue (but prone to others). Besides, Bill Gates himself admited (but news channels misinterpreted) "one Sofa in every home".
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
