[pjmlp]

Quite the contrary.

I am pointing out that fragmentation in the COMPUTER HARDWARE and SOFTWARE is normal and exists since computers are among us. Windows market is a tiny spot of the COMPUTER HARDWARE and SOFTWARE around the world.

Any good developer learns to deal with it instead of writing posts whining about it.

Plus iOS which is oversold as not being fragmented has different set of API support depending on iOS/handset/tablet pair set.

[mgkimsal]

But... it wasn't ('a tiny spot') at the time. And good developers didn't 'deal with it' so much as people simply upgraded their hardware - computer stores routinely upgraded people's modems, graphics cards, sound cards, monitors, etc. Of course, some software would run with lower quality hardware, or try to run without certain features, but people mostly upgraded components (or entire systems) to be able to run newer software. We do that today somewhat - buying new systems - but no one reasonably tries to upgrade the CPU in their android smartphone - they just get a new one.

We're either talking past each other or have a vastly different sense of the issue we're talking about (or both).

[pjmlp]

> We're either talking past each other or have a vastly different sense of the issue we're talking about (or both).

My point is that developers always had zero control over the hardware/software configuration of the systems being targeted, it has nothing to do with the ability to upgrade.

Lets say one is coding an application for Amigas. There are 500, 600, 1000, 1200, .... series.

There is zero control over which type of monitor/TV and external devices the respective users have attached to their systems.

There is no concept of device drivers as of today systems, most need to be provided by the application writers themselves.

Again, zero to do with upgrade capability rather with the diversity of the installed base.