Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Are you going to wait for Windows 9?
erikts:
Are you going to wait for Windows 9?
--- End quote ---
At home : my netbook still run OEM version of Windows XP. I have skip Windows Vista, Windows 7, and now Windows 8. I can't afford to pay the license. So whatever next operating system I use, depends on what's installed on the new computer/device I buy.
At office : I use whatever OS installed on my computer/device. Today I still have to use Windows XP.
Yes, I am learning and trialing other operating system (Linux) and also learning any new OS produced by Microsoft, just in case I have to use it. :)
Stoic Joker:
It isn't me that described Windows 8 desktop as 'legacy' it was MS! The fact that there is only minimal development on the desktop from Windows 7 says a lot about their intentions for the trad desktop.
-Carol Haynes (November 21, 2012, 04:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
I know that some people are calling the classic desktop 'legacy' and I've seen it bandied about... but can you show me somewhere that MS has said it's legacy? I think that non-Metro says a lot about their intentions towards tablets, but not necessarily towards desktops. I think if they're guilty of anything, it's feeling things out and not setting their path out there because they don't know what it is. And I think that's worst case.-wraith808 (November 21, 2012, 04:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
+1 MS has always gone out of it's way to allow backwards for legacy applications. Take DOS's legacy (CLI Only) interface, cmd.exe isn't exactly hard to find...and I seriously doubt it's going anywhere either.
Carol Haynes:
It isn't me that described Windows 8 desktop as 'legacy' it was MS! The fact that there is only minimal development on the desktop from Windows 7 says a lot about their intentions for the trad desktop.
-Carol Haynes (November 21, 2012, 04:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
I know that some people are calling the classic desktop 'legacy' and I've seen it bandied about... but can you show me somewhere that MS has said it's legacy? I think that non-Metro says a lot about their intentions towards tablets, but not necessarily towards desktops. I think if they're guilty of anything, it's feeling things out and not setting their path out there because they don't know what it is. And I think that's worst case.-wraith808 (November 21, 2012, 04:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
+1 MS has always gone out of it's way to allow backwards for legacy applications. Take DOS's legacy (CLI Only) interface, cmd.exe isn't exactly hard to find...and I seriously doubt it's going anywhere either.
-Stoic Joker (November 21, 2012, 08:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
Whilst Windows 7 and 8 include something that look and behaves like DOS it isn't really and I am not convinced you can really expect to effectively run DOS apps on newer machines. Backwards compatibility is being lost - trying running 16 bit windows apps.
tomos:
+1 MS has always gone out of it's way to allow backwards for legacy applications. Take DOS's legacy (CLI Only) interface, cmd.exe isn't exactly hard to find...and I seriously doubt it's going anywhere either.
-Stoic Joker (November 21, 2012, 08:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
Whilst Windows 7 and 8 include something that look and behaves like DOS it isn't really and I am not convinced you can really expect to effectively run DOS apps on newer machines. Backwards compatibility is being lost - trying running 16 bit windows apps.
-Carol Haynes (November 22, 2012, 03:43 AM)
--- End quote ---
still a very good record I'd say.
Josh:
How many 16 bit Windows apps still exist? Why is there a need to maintain backwards compatibility with DOS or 16 bit apps at this point? Even in Windows 3.1, we had the win32s 32-bit abstraction layer which allowed the execution of 32-bit code. I view the removal of 16 bit compatibility as a step forward and I hope to see more of the legacy code removed from Windows. I think this is the one thing that has truly held back Microsoft from being able to move Windows forward in a more proactive manner. At what point do you cut slingload and say "Developers, update your code."? At what point do you tell that user who refuses to upgrade their machine that they will not be able to upgrade to the newest version of Windows because of their choice? At what point is it time to move forward and let those who choose to remain in the past, remain there?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version