[pc2g4d]

Microsoft's willingness to maintain backward compatibility has been key to their success over the years. With the importance of Adobe's products on their platform, it makes sense that they would go out of their way to ensure their continued functioning.

[ced]

Raymond Chen from Microsoft on maintaining backward compatibility from Windows 95 to Windows XP:

Look at the scenario from the customer's standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn't work at all. You're going to tell your friends, "Don't upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it's not compatible with program Z." Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn't work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You're going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)

...

This is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to application compatibility. I could probably write for months solely about bad things apps do and what we had to do to get them to work again (often in spite of themselves). Which is why I get particularly furious when people accuse Microsoft of maliciously breaking applications during OS upgrades. If any application failed to run on Windows 95, I took it as a personal failure. I spent many sleepless nights fixing bugs in third-party programs just so they could keep running on Windows 95. (Games were the worst. Often the game vendor didn't even care that their program didn't run on Windows 95!)

[Pxtl]

God damn. If I were in that situation as a dev, I'd be tempted to break the latest releases of Adobe products on the day of launch, while still keeping the old ones supported. If I have to keep supporting your old broken garbage, you can't release new garbage.

[wand3r]

Thats the nature of the beast; everyone wants to release new garbage; which itself was clean until it had to put just a few bits of old rubbish in until it became trash.

Can't find it now but someone posted a Linux mailing list where Torvalds ripped a Dev for breaking something that impacted a user. The dev responded something like the parent: It's a 3rd party app/not Linux responsibility.

The OS has to be stable and the users experience is Paramount. Even a technical crowd (based on the thread) is 50/50 split on this being a Microsoft issue. A non-technical users response: "this software is shit, these idiots broke X in [this version] Microsoft sucks"

[z1mm32m4n]

I believe the thread you're looking for is this one, about never breaking user space:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75

[digi_owl]

And this is why the kernel is "everywhere" while "year of the desktop" never happens. Because Linux userspace is all to happy to break itself again and again and again...

[dTal]

Isn't this more of a social problem than a technical one? It seems to me like the main issue is a convention that a system only have a single version of a library installed, the anointed "system" version of that library. And often, binary releases of software are built against a particular cocktail of library versions from a particular distro at the time of release, each of which depends on its own cocktail of libraries, etc... In reality it's not complicated to get virtually any binary running on any system (in the worst case, just put the distro it expects into a chroot) - and there's no reason why applications couldn't just bundle all the libraries they need, right down to glibc - but it's just Not Done.

[wand3r]

exactly that. thank you.

[cpeterso]

And Linus taking glibc devs to task for them breaking Adobe Flash Player, due to a bug in Flash's use of memcpy():

https://lwn.net/Articles/414467/

[danielbarla]

That was an interesting read; he wasn't even very confrontational there. The point was also solid - they had an internal performance optimization change which was unproven, yet broke things in the real world. That, and the lack of guidelines or tests for what kind of usage results in the behaviour, it's a de-facto "feature" of the interface that they should not break.

[agumonkey]

Yeah, it doesn't makes me less sad but I can't blame MS to try to keep their position and backward compatibility. Also there were many other partners that didn't want to change their code, so MS had to keep many deprecated or even non public API in early windows 3/95 releases

[guitarbill]

For enterprise customers, sure. For many consumers, now that they use more modern OS and browsers daily (iOS/Android), it's painfully obvious how terrible this strategy has been - even if they can only articulate that on a subconscious level. Honestly I'd love to see what Microsoft could do if they ditched backwards compatibility completely, except in the server OSes. While hardly revolutionary, Surface Pad Pro is a good indicator/example that there's at least potential there.

[SCHiM]

Those 'more modern' operating systems have roots and parts in their codebase that are just as old, if not older, than Windows. All platforms are continously adding new pieces and sometimes rewriting old. But I know for a fact that there are parts under Android's hood that a computer scientist from the 1970 would've found familiar.

There is no reason to ditch the backwards compatibility in my opinion. All components can be kept functional alongside each other (like how UWA can function next to Win32) with some extra effort. I love the fact that there's a host of applications that target Win32 that I've been using since windows 2000 and still work on windows 10.

[mirsadm]

It's amazing how much technical debt Android has accrued given how much newer it is than Windows.

[wtallis]

I'm not too surprised. During Android's early years it was chasing a moving target as the standard mobile computing paradigm shifted from Blackberry/Treo type devices to iPhone clones. Then tablets got added to the mix and mobile SoCs outpaced Moore's Law for a while. The higher-level elements of the platform were inevitably going to be subjected to a degree of churn that Windows hasn't needed to deal with in about 20 years. (Of course, Windows has opted in to some churn with the revolving door of UI frameworks, but that's entirely self-inflicted.)

[digi_owl]

Not helped by Google thinking they could apply Chrome/web methodology to device firmware. Sorry, but there is a reason why MS do year long public betas etc. Apple can get away with being different because they control the whole stack, from the chips to the online services. Right now Google is where Palm was with PalmOS.

[m1sta_]

They could create a new version of Windows to mark this retry. Maybe they could call it Windows RT.

[derefr]

Rather than dropping compatibility entirely, I've always wondered why no modern OS has gone the route of creating a "compatibility layer" that's actually a (very-tightly-sandboxed) VM containing a [stripped-down] older copy of the OS.

This would be perfect to re-add Win16 support to W10, for example. Try to double-click a 16-bit app? It opens with its handler, "Windows 3.1 Hyper-V Association Background Launcher". As long as no W3.1 apps are running, it unloads, and the rest of the OS can be completely free of 3.1-era cruft.

You could deprecate features from your latest OS at a breakneck pace if you really took this strategy to heart. WinRT really could have been just Metro/UWP + a "Desktop" that's actually a Windows 7 VM with a high-level paravirtualized shared filesystem.

(And it's not like Microsoft didn't do this themselves before; this is essentially how DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1, in a [hypervised!] DOS VM.)

---

EDIT: let me clarify the specific point I was getting at.

If you ship $OldOS as a VM within $NewOS, very tightly sandboxed, then you never have to update $OldOS again, nor do you have to keep the code from $OldOS around in $NewOS. The $OldOS VM is now a "static artifact"—something that will never change, but will continue to run old software perfectly.

So, if $OldOS gains more security flaws, you don't update $OldOS; you update the virtualization software to make the sandbox stricter.

And when you find that your $NewOS is now, itself, old—well, you just do the whole thing again, writing an emulator for $NewOS within $EvenNewerOS, and then your $OldOS programs run by launching a VM-in-a-VM. If you like, you can port the $OldOS emulator to run on $EvenNewerOS—but you could also just consider it legacy software of exactly the type your $NewOS emulator is built to run.

The point of this is to decrease maintenance burden, by freezing the previous OS, so that you never need to think of it again. This wasn't what was done with "XP Mode"; Windows XP continued to receive updates as a component of Windows 7. The point here would be to EOL the older OS, and then virtualize it.

[ndespres]

Windows 7 included what you describe as a feature called "Windows XP Mode," which would launch applications inside a Windows XP virtual machine which was closely tied to the host OS. It worked really well for a lot of applications which weren't ready for Win 7 yet.

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee681616(v=ws.10...

[ygra]

It wasn't really that closely tied, if I remember. It simply used Terminal Services to run a single application on the server. You've long been able to open local documents with remote applications, and have the general experience very close to a local application.

[soundwave106]

Windows Virtual PC, the core of the technology, is more akin to VMWare, VirtualBox. The "Windows XP Mode" part of the equation was that Microsoft offered a pre-installed image of Windows XP.

While the virtual environment integrated somewhat with the base (eg audio, printers, some networking shares and hard drives), it still is a separate window running a separate virtualized OS. I'm not sure I would call that too tightly integrated.

Nonetheless I personally found it handy nonetheless to run the occasional very old 16-bit application.

[wvenable]

> Rather than dropping compatibility entirely, I've always wondered why no modern OS has gone the route of creating a "compatibility layer" that's actually a (very-tightly-sandboxed) VM containing a [stripped-down] older copy of the OS.

I think Raymond Chen discussed this on this blog at one point. The answer is that users want a single integrated environment for all their apps and not a bunch of isolated sandboxes. They want to drag and drop, copy and paste, share files, inter-application communication, etc. They also want a single look and feel.

The other reason is that creating a new platform from scratch is a good way to lose features and alienate developers. The core of Windows NT doesn't look anything like Windows 3.1 but for developers the API they present is similar enough to get them on board.

[candiodari]

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

MS tried to rewrite and get compatibility by using these sorts of features. It was looked at by the PMs and dismissed because it was completely broken.

Turns out most hacks are in the software for a reason. They actually solve a problem that needs solving. Who knew ?

[roblabla]

OSX did this when they went from 68k to PPC [0], from PPC to x86[1], and also with Classic to support macos 9[2]. They maintained compatibility by emulated the previous architecture on the new one.

[0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)

[2] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macOS_components#Class...

[douche]

Mac Classic was great. For some reason the G4s they issued us in high school didn't have the Classic compatibility mode locked down as tight as everything else useful (to a teenager), so I could play older Mac video games in study hall...

[derefr]

Ah, this is virtualization, though: the OS was trying to integrate the software from the old OS, letting it interact with all the older APIs of the modern OS as if it was running directly on it. Less like a VM, more like Wine.

My point was less about compatibility, and more about security. If you took this approach, old software would still expose the new OS it was virtualized atop of, to its old security flaws. So you'd still have to move away from old software, eventually, for security reasons.

But with proper VM isolation (and checkpointing, and a few other things), you could still have programs like IE6 around today, serving in its last purpose as the '90s-era Intranet web-services equivalent to the '80s 3270 mainframe terminal clients.

Most any modern VM software can offer this level of isolation, but most have "host integrations" that turn them back into security holes. To be able to ship a static, EOLed copy of XP that could run IE6 indefinitely, without that causing problems, your compatibility layer would need to be a lot less like "Windows XP Mode" or Rosetta, and a lot more like DOSBox or qemu.

There is one case where this already happens: many pieces of IBM z/OS software have been wrapped in layers of hard-isolated emulators for decades now, such that programs from the 70s are able to continue running without recompilation, atop a stack of VMs, where many of the intermediary pieces of VM software have themselves long been EOLed.

[therein]

In fact beyond virtualization, it was emulation. I remember trying to install Windows 95 on my iMac G5 under QEMU and having it barely usable. Trying to debug issues with my setup using a very buggy PPC build of Firefox.

[relevate]

This is partially the motivation behind MSR's Drawbridge project (which is the predecessor for Windows Subsystem for Linux), the idea being that the personality of the OS runs in user space and each application runs in a sandboxed picoprocess. All ~14,000 functions exposed by Windows DLLs could be implemented by a narrow ~45 ABI calls provided by the host.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/drawbridge/

[Kipters]

Technically they're already doing it via their subsystem mechanism. They're taking it "to the next level" with the Linux subsystem, where there's a kernel driver emulating a totally different kernel

[markrages]

> I've always wondered why no modern OS has gone the route of creating a "compatibility layer"

You could even hold down the Commodore key while booting to get a mode compatible with the previous system.

[digi_owl]

Yep. Many of their products stood or fell relevant to their C64 compatibility.

Once a install base has been built up, compatibility (or lack there of) can make or break you.

[flomo]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but that sounds pretty much exactly how Win16 apps worked on 32-bit NT.

[kgc]

Early releases of OSX did this using "Rosetta"

[sorenjan]

I bet it would be a huge success.

[digi_owl]

MS would crash and burn virtually over night. With no backwards compatibility there is little to no reason for customers (business or consumer) to stick with the brand.