Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (63912)	12/27/2001 1:11:07 PM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Dave, that is not correct. They have to maintain compatibility with those apps that a reasonable number of people use and which don't have newer better versions. This is all the case of trying to please as many as possible without pissing off too many users. I bet that nobody breaks applications intentionally. Lack of testing is the probable cause. It must be noted that there are more apps to worry about for msft than a linux vendor and consequently, it is a HUGE task at which they just about pass..

To: Dave who wrote (63912)	12/27/2001 3:11:06 PM
From: dybdahl	Respond to of 74651

That is true, but dropping an API support doesn't have anything to do with binary compatibility. For instance, KDE 2 was intentionally not backwards compatible with KDE 1, and KDE 3 will not be backwards compatible with KDE 2. The reason is simple: If backwards compatibility is needed, use KDE 2... all KDE APIs can coexist, and the KDE team doesn't want to have old stuff around that can slow them, just like Windows 95 compatibility slows Microsofts. There is a reason why Linux seems to make a big overtake on the desktop in a year or two - the Linux community simply develops faster. Much faster. If the Linux community manages to do as well in the next two years what they did the last two years, Windows 2003 will seem crappy to most end-users. My 12 year old nephiew, who just got himself a brand new Windows 98 PC, who has been using Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and Windows 98 since he started using PCs, made an interesting remark during a Christmas gettogether. He often plays games on my mother's Linux PC, and he thinks it is much easier to use than Windows. He especially likes the idea of a home directory in which everything is stored, and that he never gets to see any system directories, like in Windows 98, which he finds very confusing. When I asked his father whether they backed up their PCs, he said yes. When I asked if he backed up their Outlook Express e-mails, he said no - he didn't know how to back it up or where the files could be located. Being backwards compatible is a big problem for MSFT. They tried to get rid of drive letters with Windows 95 and the new desktop paradigm, but they surely blew it with Windows 98 and subsequent Windows releases. They also try to introduce better inside security with NT Terminal Server, Windows 2000 Server etc., but compatibility requirements make it almost impossible. Another issue: Requiring payment for OS upgrades and lifting hardware requirements for new OS versions is what makes application backwards binary compatibility a must - and it kills innovation in Windows.