On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Whilst it's relatively easy for a current product to be backwards compatible > with older integration mechanisms (i.e. supporting IDE ports, or PCI slots), > I haven't seen much in the way of current products allowing new integration > mechanisms to be added.
Interfaces which are both backwards and forwards compatible are certainly possible. Ethernet is prolly the best example. Parallel SCSI is another. Even in the case of something like an expansion slot, if you allow for future expansion in the design, that can work. For example, I used to work for a company that made network gear. Their top-end switch used modular cards. The first generation only used part of the space on the backplane. The second generation interface used a different space. Both interfaces could be present on a card. A card could then plug into a first generation backplane, and use only the first generation interface, or plug into a second generation backplane and run at the faster speed (or even use both). > I think that's Michael's point - eventually a new port or bus (e.g. USB v4 or > PCIe v10) will come along. It certainly may occur that at some point, one reaches the limit of one's future planning, and has to break compatibility. Again, look to Ethernet: We seem to be approaching the limits of what UTP can do. But we've gotten at least 3 decades out of it. If we got even 10 years out of a modular phone platform, that would be a huge improvement over what we have now. -- Ben
