Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st Oct 2008 08:37 UTC
Permalink for comment 335852
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-05-22
Agreed. After all, it worked for Apple, no?
Of course, corporate users seem to be the reason for the emphasis on all the backward compatability (just stating an opinion here, not fact). These companies are using a lot of proprietary and mission-critical apps which were written for older Windows versions, so it seems (to me) that Microsoft was merely trying to address the concerns of one of its biggest market segments. However, your statement is spot-on; you can take backward compatability only so far before it become less of a feature and more of a lead weight, for it stifles any sort of real innovation.
At some point Microsoft is going to have to make a clean break with the past if they want to do something innovative with any future version of their OS.