|
The emperor may put on new clothes, but down in the land of nitty-gritty, we keep solving the same problem (or two) over-and-over, anyway.*
* Just keep abstracting what it is your doing.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I'm too much of a systems guy to view it that way. I look for the differences in the problem that make it interesting, and just updating to fix something that some OS guy broke because he thought it was funny isn't my idea of fun. I suppose that is why I pretty much only write analysis code for orbital mechanics and use them to solve interplanetary trajectory problems. Sure the same equations of motion are used everywhere, so once you have a tool written it is easy to solve the same problem over and over again with one set of software, but when you can't figure out how to do something with all the old stuff you go outside the box and try another type of solution. Since my software is only used by a handful of people, it makes everything easier.
Just as a note, I have a coworker who is still using a DOS Lahey Fortran 77 compiler, because he has a library that was released as a compiled version only. If there weren't a compatibility layer to be able to run that ancient 8-bit code, we would be forced to rewrite what is essentially a good and working piece of analysis software. As it is, I write new routines where I can that replace the functionality of that library and compile that into my less outdated Compaq Visual Fortran (F77/F90/F95) compiler. When I'm being generous, I'll even throw together a gooey and maybe even connect it to a DLL (as opposed to just writing out a file and running the console program).
A version of windows that broke compatibility with his ancient toolset would be an immediate deal-breaker.
I have to say that I do still miss the days of old when I wrote pretty programs that were user focused and utilized only state of the art languages / compilers.
|
|
|
|
|
I Absolutelly agree... on new OS you see a lot of partly compatible apps, and lots of them behave strangely, look awful and won't fit the system. So if you create apps just for the OS they'll fit perfectly and hopefully you won't see any blue death's and of course they'll use the newest technologies the OS gives to the developers. Look how the longhorn(unreleased) rised after the vista was released. It was very exciting project - framework based OS.
|
|
|
|
|
I demand a OS to be mostly compatible with the applications designed to run on the prior version.
I don't need to have a Win95 app running on my Vista desktop, although I expect that apps developed to XP to run on Vista.
The same applies to device drivers.
The gap between OS versions is enough for the users have the need to update their software or hardware.
In most cases, if you don't need to update|upgrade your software or hardware is because you also don't need to upgrade you OS 
We can't stop evolution just because of background compatibility.
The effort needed to deploy it is tremendous and should the pointed towards the direction of the development of new things, not trying the keep the old ones alive a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I find the poll results interesting in that they lean heavily towards the maintainence of compatability. After all, incompatibility is a financial boon (or at least, job security) for most of us.
Yet, most of us fall (ethically?) on the side of defying unnecessary obsolesence.
Within some vague boundry condition, software salses should not be driven by the O/S upgrade, but rather, by a voluntary value added evalutation by the user of the new version.
I wonder how the survey would have turned out if we lived in a totally open-source world?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Completely agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I find the poll results interesting in that they lean heavily towards the maintainence of compatability. After all, incompatibility is a financial boon (or at least, job security) for most of us.
But actually, knowing around in eons old legacy application you have once ported from Win3.11/C to Win 95/Win32 and further on to NT4, W2K, XP and Vista can make you a living too.
A living without stupid youngsters from straight from the university who keep asking for patterns!
Don't need no bloody pattern!
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I wonder how the survey would have turned out if we lived in a totally open-source world?
It would be more highly geared to the "Critical" option. OS upgrades never rarely break hardware compatibility and rarely break software compatibly.
John
|
|
|
|
|
New OS should inherit from CListCtrl
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with Microsoft Windows is that it is completely burdened by old systems. It would have been better to make a new start and have all old software running in a virtual machine.
Have a nice life!!
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea, but this may lead to the solution:
use virtual machines also for new systems, so updates will not mess up existing install...
C#, ASPX, SQL, novice to NHibernate
|
|
|
|
|
Expensive on licensing costs and VMs are not user friendly as of yet.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this is obviously what MS is going to do...
And IMO this is a very good decision.
Make everything .NET and the rest works in a highly optimized VM of XP.
|
|
|
|
|
h32 wrote: And IMO this is a very good decision.
Make everything .NET and the rest works in a highly optimized VM of XP.
I personally really don't think this is a good decision. This means, that Windows will be slow form the very bottom...
|
|
|
|
|
Remember all those useful XP Apps / Games that refused to run on Vista... ?
I think you see my point 
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
Never had any problems...
Were they really XP apps or were already compatible on XP?
I never had any problems with native XP apps or drivers on my Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
Reelix wrote: Remember all those useful XP Apps / Games that refused to run on Vista... ?
No. Not a single one.
None of them were worth the brain-real-estate to remember them...
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
... the old app relies on a bug/flaw/whatever that the new version fixes.
Or does things it shouldn't.
Or is written in VB.
(I'm not sure I needed the joke icon, but I decided to play it safe.)
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine what goes into getting those Windows 3.1 applications working in Windows Server 2003 (32-bit), and all the applications written for the operating systems in between. This is why Windows isn't a slim OS. It's got too much of the past brought into the present.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything.
I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, design is everything...
See J2EE apps. They run in an app server. Your J2ee program is free from calling the OS directly. You program against an API. The app server (like jBoss) is responsible of running your app and to call special OS functions...
If programs in .NET would be coded so, changes in OS would mean changing (fixing) the app. server...and everything would work fine (so instead of changing/fixing tons of applications, you only change one)...
C#, ASPX, SQL, novice to NHibernate
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
