On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
You could claim, of course, that
Windows NT was a "rewrite" of the old Windows OS and so it isn't as
old
as it looks . . .
That is exactly what Brooks (and I) have in mind. You have to go
back to square one and write the whole thing over again. That does
not mean you abandon the outward appearance or the standards! You
don't throw away all of the old product, by any means. You make a
new version that is as backward compatible as possible, although
compatibility hampers innovation.
I gather the operating system for Apple computers has been rewritten
from scratch more often than Windows, and I have it is far more
reliable and fast as a consequence.
I have heard that Apple is more ruthless about backward
compatibility. Microsoft cannot afford to be, because if the new
Windows does not work with old hardware, people will eventually
throw away their hardware and buy a Mac!
I don't know what you mean about ruthless. Before OS10 came along, all
versions up to OS9 were backward compatible on the Mac. In addition,
all versions were plug and play and required very little effort to
attach new hardware. Now system 10 is being improved and everything
is backward compatible within this system. I have no problem upgrading
while using all the software and hardware I have used in earlier
versions of OS10.
Ed
