Like how you put the below. Now if you could get those useless brick
heads at freedom Scientific to do the same with rebuilt jaws, and not
just slip the new code into the old junk. Even there scripts need a
total rework. There are scripts used for program that have not
changed sense written and don't even work with the program now or do
it very sluggishly. Talk about bloat ware.
At 11:54 PM 12/11/2011, you wrote:
Hi Dark,
I certainly understand why you feel the way you do about Windows
compatibility issues--I'm certain most end users are likely to see
things your way--but because you aren't a software developer you
aren't seeing the other side of the issue. Which is simply this.
First, Microsoft has a long history of maintaining backwards
compatibility with older software applications and APIs long after
they have passed out of mainstream use.
For example, up until 1995 most processors ran on a 16-bit
architecture. However, Intel's Pentium processor introduced the 32-bit
architecture to the PC market and Windows 95 was the very first
Windows version to support the 32-bit architecture.Microsoft could
have done away with 16-bit compatibility ages ago, but the 32-bit
version of Windows 7 still has 16-bit MS Dos backwards compatibility
support. Its only the 64-bit version of Windows 7 that no longer has
16-bit application support, and Microsoft has plenty of good reasons
to drop 16-bit support. Not the least of which is when does Microsoft
reach a cut off point, say that's it, and focus their time and money
supporting newer technologies?
Another example is Microsoft's DirectSound API. Keep in mind that the
technology was written in 1995, for PCs running Windows 95, and was
written completely for a different era of hardware. Microsoft patched
and maintained the API for as long as they could, but by 2005 there
was so many changes in hardware it required a complete rewrite from
scratch. That's when they began writing XAudio and XAudio2 which have
essentially replaced DirectSound on Windows Vista and Windows 7, and
offers a lot of new features that weren't available in DirectSound.
Even though XAudio2 is technically the current API for audio
programming on Windows. Fact of the matter is Windows Vista, Win 7,
and Win 8 all come preinstalled with DirectSound 8 libraries for
backwards compatibility support even though the API is considered to
be deprecated. So contrary to your assertions Microsoft does try to
maintain a reasonable amount of backwards compatibility support as
long as its necessary and reasonable to do so.
Second, is stability and other technical concerns. In order to upgrade
and add new features to an operating system like Windows there usually
has to be changes in the underlying APIs that can and very well may
break compatibility with older software that rely on the API working
exactly as it did in prior versions. This is very problematic for
software developers, because they have to choose one of two methods
for handling this problem.
The method Microsoft has consistently chosen time and time again with
their APIs is to branch or fork the API when and where possible.
That's because there are sometimes changes that will break
compatibility with older software and instead of choosing to break
compatibility they allow two different versions of the library or API
to be installed side by side with each other like we see with
Microsoft's .NET Framework. While this certainly helps maintain
compatibility for the long hall it gets to be confusing for
developers, technical support, and of course end users who don't know
the difference between one version of the API or library from another.
The problem with forking an API and attempting to maintain backwards
compatibility this way is that it becomes extremely bloated and
successive upgrades only makes the problem worse. With Windows Vista
everyone complained of poor system performance, massive slow down, and
instability problems. Microsoft largely resolved these problems in
Windows 7 by removing thousands of lines of code from the operating
system, and by removing various libraries they felt that were no
longer needed. As a result Windows 7 is both more stable and runs much
more reliably than Windows Vista. It was a matter of necessity
regardless of the cost to backwards compatibility. If Microsoft hadn't
taken this necessary step and kept all that old code around Windows 7
would likely be as slow and unstable as Vista, because a software
developer can't continue to add layer after layer of code indefinitely
without degrading performance and stability. Sooner or later it
becomes a necessity to clean house, and get rid of everything that
isn't of primary importance.
Finally, while I agree not everything Microsoft does like menu
ribbons, changing the start menu, and various other changes aren't
strictly necessary its usually a result of trying to be competitive.
Microsoft now has to worry about competing with Apple's Mac OS
operating system, and free desktop operating systems like Linux. A lot
of the user interface changes we are seeing is an attempt to make
their operating system look new, innovative, and set themselves apart
from their competition. Plus with more advanced hardware like faster
processors and 3d video cards the technology is there to add better
visual effects like the 3d icons and 3d Windows arrow desktop in
Windows 7. That was not possible 10 years ago, and since the
technology exists Microsoft hopes to attract customers to the new OS
by taking advantage of what the new hardware has to offer. That's just
typical capitalist business practice.
The point I want to make is your asserting that Microsoft don't care
about their customers and do their own thing despite what their
customer base says. I really don't believe that. I've seen Microsoft
make a lot of changes based on end user feedback in the past.
For example, when Microsoft was developing Visual Basic .NET MSDN ran
a servey on what Visual Basic developers wanted to see in the next
generation of the language. Naturally a lot of developers wanted a
more pure object oriented design similar to Java and other oop
languages. Sure enough Visual Basic .NET delivered almost everything
the MSDN community asked for, and Visual Basic .NET is now purely
object oriented which came directly out of customer feedback and
requests.
XAudio2---which I mentioned earlier--was also developed based on end
user feedback and requests. As I mentioned before there were technical
limitations in DirectSound, and there were a number of requests from
the MSDN subscribers as to changes they wanted to see in the next
version of DirectSound. Instead of upgrading DirectSound Microsoft
chose to start from scratch adding in the most popular features and
ideas requested by game developers. Granted I don't necessarily like
or agree with all of the changes in XAudio2, but I can say Microsoft
did take end user suggestions and requests in hand when developing the
API.
The point I want to make here is the reason you and others feel left
out, think Microsoft doesn't care about their customers, is you are
not a MSDN insider. You don't regularly beta test software for
Microsoft, aren't a software developer, and are essentially completely
unknown to them. Its not so much they don't care, but they are more
likely to listen to someone they know, someone who has been on the
scene a while, and they've done business with in the past. Like
everything else in life its not what you know but who you know that
counts. You have to have contacts in Microsoft who will pass on your
ideas and suggestions to the proper people who can make a difference
or actively get involved in a forum where Microsoft is open to end
user feedback.
For example, have you ever paid for an MSDN subscription? Have you
ever gone through a paid beta testing cycle for Windows Vista, Windows
7, or Windows 8? Have you ever hung out on the MSDN forums where the
Microsoft developers hang out?
Well, if your answer is no then that's why Microsoft isn't listening
to you. You have to become an active member of their little click, get
to be known by the developers by testing and debugging their software,
and have to be there when these decisions are being made. You can't
come along months or years later and ask them to change feature x,
because its too late for that. What's done is done as the saying goes.
If you aren't there when these things are being discussed you have no
say in the matter.
Cheers!
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
