[pjc50]

Breaking backwards compatibility is bad for diversity, because it "culls" a whole load of otherwise working software that is not being maintained. You can see the reverse of this on the app stores, which have mandatory update policies.

Regularly doing it basically forces developers into a limited-term license, subscription, or SaaS model, in order to pay for the upgrade churn required by the platform.

And a lot of it is just churn. Not evolution, not better, just .. different.

[timcobb]

> it "culls" a whole load of otherwise working software

It doesn't cull it, you can still run Windows 3.11 or 98SE as well under emulation as on contemporary original hardware.

If anything, breaking backwards compatibility forces you to run your old software in an "authentic" environment, versus say, on some hardware/software combination tens of generations removed. Like, why would you want to run SkiFree in Windows 11, it feels like an abomination to me, almost disrespectful to the game. I don't want to see my old programs in Windows 11...

[Suppafly]

>you can still run Windows 3.11 or 98SE as well under emulation as on contemporary original hardware

That's mostly how the backwards compatibility works anyway, just under the hood. The OS is using all sorts of compatibility layers to make the older software sit on top of and work on the newer OS versions. It just mostly works flawlessly, so you don't think about it unless it doesn't work automatically and forces you to go into the properties and tinker with which compatibility layer to manually apply.

[timcobb]

I didn't know that, but I would have assumed that. And that being the case, the difference seems to be whether you want to run your old program in a Windows 11 chrome or a Windows 3.11 chrome :shrug: