How I feel about MS's newer products

[DreamThrall]

In the past few years, MS has put out some new products and updates to products that have completely changed the way things are done. By this I mean caused some SERIOUS compatilibity issues. One of the main ones, which doesn't really affect EVERYONE - was the .NET Framework. Sure, the Framework is great! But I believe it also marked the first time that MS released a product that was not backwards compatible with its previous products. There are a few more releases like this coming out - the WinFX API, which is supposed to completed replace the Win32 API, and DX10, which we all know won't with with XP or our beloved DX9 cards. It hasn't always been like this - as an example, MS once wrote special code into Win 3.1 so that the original SimCity wouldn't crash.

This article pretty much explains how I feel. It was written almost 2 years ago, so its a little dated, but you get the idea.

Yes, there are some great new features in these products. But I can't imagine that making everything backwards compatible would be an impossible task.

Read the article and discuss.

 

[destrukt]

dx10 won't run on dx9 cards ? ahh, the sky is falling !

dx9 didn't work on dx8 cards, dx8 didn't work on dx7 cards and so on, i throw a big 'duh' at you.

- by not working, i don't mean vista [dx10] just plain won't work on your dx9 card but you won't get the benefits of having dx10-capable hardware.


this article is old, alot of things have happend in relation to microsoft, windows and other things so what was said back than isn't really relevant.

microsoft is getting blamed for bad developers.. i guess it's not much new, you guys blame them for hardware/driver problems yet that's not their area even though they do an amazing job.

backwards compatability isn't a 'huge' problem in any microsoft-product (within reason, expecting your win 3.1 programs to run on xp is ignorant); vista (i'm saying this based on various builds i've tested) and there's more or less no problems in office 2007.

also, with the introduction of new api's like avalon/winfx there aren't any significant problems, and when this article was written they basically knew nothing about either of them, yet another reason not to try and discuss out dated articles.

WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon.

nope, that's wrong, you don't need too.

this article lists apple as being in the camp which doesn't like to support 'broken' apps when they update, yet what about the whole 'classic' thing in os x to support < os 9 apps ? rubbish i tell you.

it will take a couple of years before enough people have it that it's even worth considering as a development platform.

i'm sorry, name ANYTHING (within reason) that can be learnt instantly and it's full potential, or even just a lot of it realised.


that article was basically anti-progression.


everyone is scared of the big new and scary things they don't understand.. unless of course, it's a fad like "web 2.0" /shudders.

i'm telling you, don't read old articles like this and expect to have a current and decent debate, most of it is rubbish though i'm sure some of it was okay, back then, even then i could have pointed out alot of fallacies.

another thing about that article, it was about twice as long as it should [could] have been.

 

[DreamThrall]

Okay... I dare say you're missing the spirit of the debate. I'm not expecting my 3.1 programs to run on XP - I was using SimCity in 3.1 as an example of the lengths that Microsoft USED to go to in the name of ensuring compatibility between their old products and new products.

It wasn't meant for the article to provide fodder directly relevant to a current discussion on the topic - I even said up front that it was nearly 2 years old. Rather, I linked it to provide a general feeling of what I was trying to say.

 

[destrukt]

microsoft STILL goes to great lengths to ensure backwards compatability, and since that's apparently what this is about, there's not really anything to say.

vista (including the new apis)/office have great backwards compatability support and neither are finished.

though, since you wanted to use that article as the focus point for this thread, which seems to be about the [apparent] lack of zeal from ms for backwards compatability, i'd like some [new/soon to be current] examples, maybe then the discussion can continue.

 

[DreamThrall]

Okay, well what about moving from ASP 3.0 to ASP.NET?

 

[Cole]

Leave Microsoft alone it's been 6 years.

.Net is a development language that is finally powerfull and rapid. What you could do in C++ in 2 hours, you could do in C# in 10 minutes.

DX10? Dx10 is most likely coded deep down into Vista. Not only that but Vista will support DX9. Vista has FULL SUPPORT FOR DX9. It does not emulate it or any of that. What it doesn't support is Dx9 calls from Dx10. This means all your Dx9 games will run perfectly on Vista. since Dx9 is backwards compatible with all other lower Dx versions, all older ones will still work to.

Dx10 is most likely deeply coded into Vista. They would most likely have to code quite a bit into Xp in order to support DX10, adding a lot of Vista's internal functions that rely on other functions which would also have to be added into Vista.
Just because Xp does not support Vista dosn't mean they are breaking compatibilty it means they are looking to the future. Vista is still quite compatible with Dx9. Apple releases an OS very often compared to Microsoft. Microsofts last one as Xp 6 YEARS AGO. People buy graphic cards worth $250+ every 3 years. Microsofts asking what, 150-200 for the Ultimate Edition, the highest costed one.

 

[destrukt]

i don't keep up with asp but as far as i'm aware, asp.net offers a ton of advantages and is a complete rewrite, so even having a tiny bit of backwards compatability is good, and the have more then just a tiny bit.. also, apparently it isn't hard to make sure 3.0 works in .net or to rewrite parts of it.

seriously, i think the topic of this thread (ms and backwards compatability) is absolute rubbish, ms go to great lengths and aren't really doing anything wrong.. ie, a waste of time picking on a certain 'point' related to ms, find something worthwhile to discuss, or maybe create this thread when they stop putting in effort to be backwards compatability.

 

[sinkoman]

Okay... I dare say you're missing the spirit of the debate. I'm not expecting my 3.1 programs to run on XP - I was using SimCity in 3.1 as an example of the lengths that Microsoft USED to go to in the name of ensuring compatibility between their old products and new products.

Well, you can't really use your example at all, because now we have billions of games, millions of which don't work in different versions of Windows.

You expect microsoft to go down a list of programs, games, and old coding languages, that aren't compatible with their new os' and api's, and fix every single issue?

 

[DreamThrall]

You expect microsoft to go down a list of programs, games, and old coding languages, that aren't compatible with their new os' and api's, and fix every single issue?

That's exactly what they did for 3.1.

 

[sinkoman]

That's exactly what they did for 3.1.

And you used ONE game to cite your evidence.

You basically said "they made this one game compatible back then, they should make ALL these games compatible now!".

 

[DreamThrall]

And you used ONE game to cite your evidence.

You basically said "they made this one game compatible back then, they should make ALL these games compatible now!".

They did compatibility checks with lots of software, SimCity was the notable one I specifically remember because they had to add a special memory mode to make it work.

@destrukt - Honestly, I am a .NET programmer, and I love .NET - it is really a genious piece of engineering. I don't know what you mean about 3.0 being compatible with .NET at all though - I was a 3.0 programmer for 5 years and had to learn all over again for .NET.

I didn't make this thread because I have something against MS. I really don't. The point is that it seems like upgrading *USED* to be an easier, more gradual process, and these days it seems like its force fed.

 

[sinkoman]

They did compatibility checks with lots of software

Lots of programmers do compatibility checks, but don't actually do anything about the results.

 

[DreamThrall]

but don't actually do anything about the results.

Okay, but that wasn't the case.

 

[destrukt]

yeah, you're used to how valiant microsoft were [are] and you're a little disapointed when 1 or 2 things suddenly aren't completely backwards compatible.

nothing good [or bad?] ever quite lasts, though they are still doing one hell of a job.

i'm not accusing you of having something against ms, it just seems you've picked quite a subject to debate and i don't feel there is anything much, as i've said a few times, they're still doing alot of [extra?] work for backwards compatability, even though the technology/code is drastically different/new.

 

[sinkoman]

Okay, but that wasn't the case.

Okay, maybe you can understand an analogy.

There's this kid with a lemonade stand. ten or twelve guys don't like how the kids lemonade tastes, so he refunds their money.

Now, there's a giant softdrink corporation. Eighty thousand customers are pissed, cause they don't like the way their softdrinks taste. The corporation could care less. They aren't going to waste their time refunding eighty thousand peoples money just cause they don't like the taste.