New
#30
WHAAAAAAATTTTTT????? This statement might have been true more than 10 years ago, but how could you make such a statement today? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software when Windows XP was introduced? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software again when Vista was introduced? This is called "planned obsolence", not "backwards compatability".
No. Honestly, I never had a piece of software not work on Vista that worked on XP. There were a few drivers, but that is to be expected.
I never made the move from Win9x to XP. I ran NT from the initial beta. I have softeware I wrote on Win 3.11 for Workgroups that still runs on 32-bit Win 7. That is backward compatability. This software was written in 1992. You bet that MS is very concerned about backwards compatability and they have done an excellent job of it.
As far as hardware goes, older hardware will always have a hard time with new OS's. Vista was a major update from XP and almost 6 years in the making and in the hardware world, an eon.
PhreePhly
Really? Kinda of broad statement. I had no problem when I went to XP at all. Maybe a driver or two, but that was an easy fix. As for going to vista, didn't have to buy all new hardware. MS released it too early and there were no drivers available. I stuck with XP, until more drivers were released and Vista was fine after that. Win7 was even easier.
I agree with your main point very strongly. Apple's main problem here is arrogance.
After one of the first Laptop Hunter ads, Apple actually responded by saying that saving money doesn't help if the computer doesn't work. They actually claimed that a Vaio FW laptop "doesn't work."
Then at WWDC 09 they made a slew of derogatory comments about Windows 7, all of which were outright lies. We all know that Apple didn't have someone test Windows 7 before making those remarks.
I find it so strange that Apple can get away with whatever bad business practices they want, with ZERO consequences. The EU is getting on Microsoft's case for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows; why not attack Apple for bundling Safari with OS X? Microsoft is accused of maintaining a monopoly in the PC market; Apple's legal department considers it a crime to install OS X on a computer they didn't build. People like us run hundreds of programs on our computers that have not been certified by MS; Apple has a killswitch in place on the iPhone that can let them deactivate any app on the device if they suddenly decide they don't like it.
The ultimate example of Apple arrogance is Snow Leopard's tagline: "The world's most advanced operating system." It's not. Windows can do more than Mac. Linux can do more than Mac. The only thing exceptionally advanced about Mac is the fancy graphics and special effects (cover flow, etc). And guess what? Last time I checked, you can get a lot of those fancy effects and UI in Windows, through the use of customization programs. So there goes the Snow Leopard tagline!
C'mon Apple, you whine and complain about MS criticizing your high prices in a commercial? The next commercial on the air had your Steve Jobs lookalike insinuating that PC users are stupid clumsy nerds. It doesn't take one of your "Geniuses" to figure out which insult is worse.
Hear hear!
Actually it's called "get with the 21st century". I can personally attest that I did not need all new equipment, nor all new software, to upgrade from Windows 98 to ME, and then to XP. I bought a new computer for Vista, but only because my XP rig only had 384MB of RAM, which is barely enough to run Linux. Not to mention, the XP rig was ready to replaced for other reasons. Windows 7 runs like a dream on my Vista rig.
And hardware aside, you really can't complain if a program written for Windows 95 doesn't work on XP or newer. It is the developer's responsibility to update the program to the 21st century. If they refuse, then the users need to find a newer, better program that is being actively maintained.
(And Apple just ditched OS X support for all Macs older than 2006. So who's got the real problem with backwards compatibility?)
Backwards compatibility deals primarily with software, not hardware. For example, many businesses use Windows because they still support business programs made 30 (yes, 30) years ago. However, Macs cannot support software made more than around 5 to 10 years ago.
However, if you think about it, the hardware is somewhat backwards compatible also because some people up in Microsoft HQ have gotten Windows 7 to work on a computer with a Pentium II processor and 96 MB of RAM (I have no screenshot to prove this, but my brother works at Microsoft, so I get all my info from him). However, Max OS X v10.5 only works on Macs using Intel processors and not older Macs using the PowerPC processors. Also, you can upgrade PCs by yourself. However, with Macs, you have to take it to the Apple Store and have them upgrade it for you or just buy a whole new computer.
Apple's strategy from the start was to create and sell Ferrari's to an elite group of well-to-do snobs and make owning a PC a symbol of "having made it" in the world. They wanted absolute control and a VERY large % if not 100% of the profits from all Apple related products and services. My first PC was an Apple IIe. Nice machine in its day.
IBM wanted absolute control and 100% of the profits from IBM DOS and any hardware they licensed the IBM BIOS to.
Bill Gates, like Henry Ford, created and marketed a Model T (MS-DOS) that even the lowliest of the population could afford. If not for themselves then for their children. His strategy changed PCs from a $$$ status symbol to a generic toaster found in every kitchen (Ok - maybe a washing machine, price wise, found in every laundry room). To the 3rd party hardware and software vendors he said - "Have at it, may the best products/services win!", and prices for all plummeted from OPEN market competition. And the population benefited.
Did he become the richest man in the world as a result? YES. Did MS come to dominate the market? YES. Do I resent their success? NO!
I, for one, am grateful, Bill Gates and MS are an example of entrepreneurial "Carpe Diem". They "seized the day" at a critical point in the history of technology.
But they did not grip the reins tightly as Apple and IBM attempted to do. They gave a wild horse a loose rein and held on for the ride. Many other industries simply grabbed the horses tail and did the same.
The existence of this forum is only one example of the consequences of the Apple versus MS strategies.
And I think the best horse won! That is the way of the free market.