----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bentley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "RBASE-L Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 3:49 PM
Subject: [RBASE-L] - RE: None RBase Question!
> Mike,
>
> If you believe that load of BS. I have this bridge between
> Manhattan and Brooklyn you can buy for a very low price.
>
> I came to the PC world via many years installing, programming,
> and managing software packages in the IBM main frame world. IBM
> upgrades to its operating systems(mainframe and mini) are
> evolutionary they didn't go out an break a significant part of
> existing software. Yes there were changes that affected
> backward compatibility. There always is as that is the only way
Actually most of the backward compatibility was preserved up thru Win2K
AFAIK. The architecture was built around the NT Kernel, wrapped by the HAL
(Hardware Access Layer) and the Executive Layer (please forgive if the
nomenclature is not exactly right as I covered this stuff in a class about 10
years ago and haven't set eyes on it since). The original NT Kernel, as many
here recall preserved the Actual MSDOS SubSystem as well as the OS/2 SubSystem,
so there was an effort to preserve Backward Compatibility and the recent
changes that seem to ignore all those issues is likely the thrust of the
article. I have read in the barest of detail about Win7 from MS Releases to
ZDNet and others that also lends credence to the modular approach mentioned in
the article.
If the modular approach is in fact the structure of the next iteration, I'm all
for it, since the Win32 environment which nearly 100% of the Desktop
applications today run against, including our beloved RBase.
As far as believing anything, at my age I am a little bit jaded, tending to let
things play out a bit till there is something substantive to get my head
around. Kind of like the sign in Fox Mulders' office, "Trust NoOne" .....
> to grow/enhance the operating system. The opbect of the game is
> to cause minimal disruption of you customers operation.
> Microsoft never learned that lesson. Each major release involve
> massive changes to the underling architecture rendering hardware
> and software obsolete. This revolution instead of evolution
> allows them to ingnore all of the past unfixed problems.
