Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Settings backup software?

<< < (4/6) > >>

Josh:
Thats just it, Microsoft didn't realize that the business OS, then NT, would take off and be as popular as it became. Yes, backwards compatibility is forced, but that is because if they didn't retain they would be screamed at for breaking applications and the way they operate. People can't complain about Microsoft not putting in backwards compatibility, then whine when they do and things like this happen. Microsoft is finally fixing what should have been done properly by developers since XP became the primary code-base (dropping the 9x line of code). I surely don't blame Microsoft for leaving compatibility modes in place, and I don't blame them for changing the system to force developers to code properly now as they have with Vista. Its like the whole w3c fiasco, if people had coded properly from the start, we wouldn't have the standards wars going on right now for web browsers. Likewise, if developers had coded their applications to take advantage of proper setting storage, we wouldn't be where we are now.

As I said, I don't blame Microsoft. The system has been in place for years (since Windows XP's release and the demise of the 9x code base

Carol Haynes:
Sorry - I think we are talking slightly at cross purposes - I am not referring to 'compatibility mode' in the Windows sense.

The problem with every version of Windows is that it contains every previous version back to MSDOS. OK they have now dropped DOS support in NT based systems - but even NT still carries legacy of previous versions of Windows. By trying to make Windows work so that an application written 10 years ago should install and run without problem on the latest and greatest version they are completely stuck with the hotch-potch of decisions made over nearly 30 years.

Personally I think it is time for MS (and all users) to bite the bullet and be really radical.

The next version of Windows (IMHO) should go further than the usual of cycle of minor bug fixes, security fudges (that drive everyone mad), DRM fudges (that drive everyone mad), Windows Genuine Advanatage (that drives everyone mad) and yet another minor update to Internet Explorer (which drives everyone mad) and a new graphical paint job (that wastes massive resources to look pretty).

Instead they should say Windows XP and Vista will be updated and supported for the next 10 years - and when the next version of Windows is released it will be a completely new system designed, built and coded from scratch. for an interim period they will provide something similar to VirtualPC (seemlessly integrated, running Windows Vista/XP whatever) as a freebie - but when the new OS has had time to bed in and become established (say 2 releases) drop support of older systems alotgether and force an orderly move to the new system by developers.

If people still want backward compatibility they should run a dual boot with a relevant version of Windows (XP/Vista).

The new OS would then be much leaner, properly designed for purpose (rather than something that was literally designed in 48 hours on the back of an envelope like MS-DOS was - and largely lifted from CP/M without credit) and would be so much faster  and save on wasted clock cycles just trying to deal with software written for 10 different versions of Windows simultaneously.

Just one example - who thought shared DLL files were a good idea and then implemented DLL hell as we have it now? If a new version of windows insisted that all shared files were placed in one central repository and version checking was performed by installation routines you could guarantee that only the latest version is installed. As it is now how many apps have DLLs in their application folders with the result that multiple versions exist of the same file and it is pot luck which one ends up in memory half the time?

Josh:
Carol, that post is a very well thought out one and I whole-heartedly agree. My compatibility mode reference was more at MS maintaining "Backwards compatibility" for the sake of users who use old software. This has been a problem daunting the Windows platform for years. Yes, Microsoft needs to drop support for older versions. Yes, this will annoy a lot of people, but in the end, it will be better since we can truly rid ourselves of old, insecure code and grow on a more secure baseline. Developers need to start realizing that with Vista, previous thoughts about storage are no longer going to work. Storing settings in the program files folder is unacceptable. There is a reason we have user profiles, lets use them.

But yes, I agree with your post. Great job :)

edbro:
The problem with starting fresh with no backward compatibility is that the business world would revolt. I know in my organization, we are very slow to adapt to new software. We wait until it has been out there for quite a while before using it. That goes for the OS as well as applications. I know most business' would not be willing to do a wholesale swap for a new OS and new application software to go with it. It is too expensive and too risky.

Let's face it, MS makes most of their profit from the corporate world. Not too many consumers are buying $500 Office suites. Business' have too much invested in legacy software to simply change everything.

Josh:
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with why we cant ditch the backwards compatibility code (reducing the size of windows itself). This again, is why I don't and can't blame Microsoft for thinking of the customers first. Businesses aren't the only ones requiring backwards compatibility, I know several home users which use old software on a daily basis and refuse to upgrade.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page