Comment by kstrauser
4 days ago
> So Microsoft had to do everything they could to ensure broken software would still work
I think they chose to do everything they could to keep it limping along. An alternative would've been a name-and-shame approach, like "This program crashed because the author made this mistake: [short description or code or whatever]", and leave them out to try until the devs stopped doing those dumb things. After a few years of pain, people would've gotten with the program, so to speak. Instead, they chose the path that put zero pressure on devs to write correctly-behaving software.
The thing is, Microsoft got its position of dominance exactly because they did that - and that was because by doing this, the users' programs kept working. Remember that users outnumber developers by far and the last thing Microsoft wanted was for people to not upgrade Windows because they broke their previously working programs.
This was even more important at a time when Microsoft had actual competition in the OS space and people weren't able to just go online and download updates.
> The thing is, Microsoft got its position of dominance exactly because they did that
Yeah, right. No bribes, no preinstalled software...
They dominated by ... accident.
Nobody said it was by accident. They had deals with PC manufacturers for decades where they sold licenses based on the number of PCs sold by the manufacturer regardless of if the PC used MSDOS or another OS (like DRDOS), making all other options more expensive unless the client asked for them.
But the important thing is that the clients pretty much never asked for other OSes because all of their software worked on MSDOS - and later Windows. People bought computers to run their software, so if the software they wanted to run needed MSDOS or Windows, they'd buy the machines that ran that OS.
And by extension, if the software they wanted to run wouldn't run on the next version of MSDOS or Windows, they wouldn't have a reason to upgrade MSDOS or Windows. But from a user's perspective MSDOS/Windows was the best choice because everything supported it.
Microsoft didn't rely on just backwards compatibility (especially since the idea of "backwards compatibility" relies on something to be compatible with in the first place) but it was an incredibly important aspect of their strategy.
Yes, but that doesn't solve the customer's problem
And what does the customer do if the vendor has discontinued it? Or charges for an upgrade? Or has gone out of business?
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031224-00/?p=41...
I'm pretty sure another one was "what if you're wrong/have a false positive detection, and slander another company, one with lawyers?"
> And what does the customer do if the vendor has discontinued it? Or charges for an upgrade? Or has gone out of business?
Those can all be filed under Not My Problem (as in, Microsoft's problem,) and safely ignored. On the other hand, when Highly Influential So-And-So upgrades from 3.1 to 95 or whatever, and Very Population Application v4.9.6 starts falling over, Microsoft gets the black eye whether they deserve it or not. The whole equation changes.
> Those can all be filed under Not My Problem (as in, Microsoft's problem,) and safely ignored.
It was absolutely Microsoft’s problem. Had it ignored compatibility issues, what incentives would users have had to buy Windows 95?
> After a few years of pain, people would've gotten with the program, so to speak.
Not necessarily. This was still very much the time in which choosing to stick with an old version which worked (e.g. Windows 3.1) wasn't uncommon.
Just look at how many people jumped from XP to 7 due to the network effect of "Vista sucks" and then multiply that by the fact that, at the time of 3.1->95, people had far fewer computer security concerns, if any.
Why would I buy a new version of Windows, if none of my existing software will work on it, so I have to buy new versions of everything? Sounds expensive.
But your computer will be secure and then pedophiles and terrorirst wouldn't stand a chance.
Raymond Chen already discussed this. Microsoft wants to sell Windows. Windows exists to run software. If Windows doesn't run software, Microsoft doesn't make that sale.
If your business runs on some obscure piece of software for which updates are neither cheap or easy, you're not going to buy Windows if it doesn't run that software.
Name and shame doesn't work because the developer isn't part of the transaction.