backward compatibility

Backward compatibility is often broken in new versions of operating systems, and programmers need to literally rewrite their programs every 3 years, otherwise they will not work. Why can’t you add new features without breaking backward compatibility?

I think that a new version of the operating system every 5 years would be optimal from the point of view of developers. And between releases - release service packs, bug fixes, development and testing of new features.

For example, the 32-bit winhelp module was removed from Vista and left 16-bit, although the ability to run such programs was also removed.

Or, for example, incompatibility of the code of the programs written in visual studio 2010, and win2k. Or modern versions of skype and winxp sp2, chrome browser (50 and above) and winxp / vista.

What technically prevented the release of ie9 under winxp, adding the necessary libraries, thereby getting rid of ie8 problems? Or, for example, the browser ms edge 12/13 and win7 sp1.

I remember how vista / 7 was advertised. Compared to the top ten, these operating systems in general, we can say, were not discussed.

In the eight, the start menu was cut out, and then it was returned in a truncated form and presented as a new opportunity.

Plus, in the top ten, many standard elements of the desktop interface have changed a lot (for example, clocks, some elements of the control panel). And the classic calculator was removed and replaced with the metro version.

Why turn desktop operating systems into tablet and smartphone?

Each new operating system is presented by Microsoft as something perfect and perfect. And old versions are deprecated and are not recommended for use.

And relatively old operating systems on new computers are already problematic to install. Moreover, at the level of drivers and computer hardware.

Such are the thoughts (amended version of 2016). This is my first article on Habr, although I registered back in 2013.


Also popular now: