Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms

rbowman:

CrudeSausage:
>

Have you ever considered that an operating system could
offer layers of functionality? For example, a 286 could
run Windows 3.0, but if you wanted the enhanced
features, you needed a 386. Why can't it be that way
with Windows again?

>
So a software company would have to maintain, build, and
test several branches, some of which would have minimal
sales? No thanks.

Not at all.  This kind of compatibility is not maintained in
branches, but rather in a common code base with perhaps (but
not necessarily) some platform-specific fragments govenred
by conditinal compilation.  Modern technology offers many
open, stable, and well-supported standards and protocols to
make software that lasts.

A reponsible developer uses the oldest technology that suits
the task, to save the users from the upgrade treadmill.  For
example, a terminal text editor may support 132x60 true-
color terminals, but it will always support the standard ISO
screen of 80x25 characters as the common denominator.  It
may support Unicode, but will always support 7- and 8-bit
codepages, and so on.  That way, computer can have their
natural usable lifespan of 20-25 years for the majority of
everyday tasks.

Many requirements are the result of a collusion between
hardware, OS, and software makers to  force usees (as
xwidnows calls them) continuosly to pay for newer hardware,
OSes, and software -- merely too keep the PC usable.
Hackers have demonstrated that many games and some browsers
do not work on Windows XP simply because of an explicit
version test in the code, removing which lets the program
run.

This article is made in Windows XP: written in RPad32,
formatted with GNU Troff, and posted via Sylpheed.

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments