Legacy apps in Windows/OS X was Re: Old MS-DOS & Win Software

[Allison]

>
>Subject: Re: Legacy apps in Windows/OS X was Re: Old MS-DOS & Win Software
>   From: Scott Stevens <chenmel at earthlink.net>
>   Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:05:45 -0500
>     To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:27:31 +0000
>Adrian Graham <witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/05 23:53, "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Worst case, I setup something like my 8500/180 running an old
>> > enough version of the OS so that I can also run "Warlords 2". 
>> > BTW, I do own PC versions of both games, from before I got a
>> > Mac, however, they're limited to 640x480, while the Mac
>> > versions go up to something like 1152x870.  Both games are
>> > also well on topic, but still two of my favorite games of all
>> > time.
>> 
>> My only take on this that springs to mind is why should you
>> expect a computer company to continue supporting older hardware
>> and software beyond a certain timeframe unless they explicitly
>> say their current product is 100% compatible with their 10/15/20
>> year old product? It's almost like expecting a car manufacturer
>> to still support manual wind-down windows and non-central
>> locking because you happen to like manual windows and door locks
>> you can activate individually.
>> 
>
>It's not a matter of 'meeting the requirement' or else for the
>manufacturer.  It's a matter of satisfying a customer and holding
>onto market share.  I happen to prefer manual windows and
>non-central locking, and won't buy a car with electronic locks. 
>That is my choice and car makers who want to sell a car to me will
>offer it.  
>
>Much the same is true with Microsoft.  They want to hold onto
>their legacy customers, in fact leveraging that legacy is a big
>part of how they've held onto and controlled the market.  There
>come points at which it's probably to Microsoft's advantage to
>abandon legacy features, and that's when they do it.  But they and
>a lot of the rest of us know that's really one of the only things
>they have going for themselves.


Therin lies the truth of the matter.  It's why the VAX11/780 happend,
DGs machine Eclipse, and many others.  The investment of software 
and the desire for "customer retention" are often drivers of 
technology choices.  Its basic to even chipsets be they 8080 to 8088
then on to 80286 and Motorola did the same with 6800, 6809 and 68K.
Granted in many cases at the chip level they are not binary compatable
the idea being everyone gets to keep what they learned and has an 
upgrade path. I don't think for one second that was missed in 
business 101.

However, legacy can be an albatross, ones neck may be on the line
if the choice is wrong.

Allison