IE10 coming to Windows 7 sometime, maybe Microsoft takes great pains to ensure that each new version of Windows remains backward compatible with older applications. But if Internet Explorer is any indication, writing a modern application for Windows 8 that still runs on older platforms is a lot harder than it sounds. Each preview release of Windows 8 shipped with two …
> For now, however, it seems the only way Microsoft will supply you with a modern browser that complies with the latest open web standards is if you agree to <u>upgrade</u> to its newest proprietary OS.
It'd be better to term this "update", not "upgrade". We won't know it is an upgrade until such time as a few of us have actually evaluated it.
Windows ME from Windows 98SE was an update, not an upgrade.
Windows Vista from Windows XP was an update, not an upgrade.
The iOS 6 Maps application from what iOS 5 had was an update, not an upgrade.
Just because it is newer, does not mean it is better. It could be a lot worse.
> Update=minor version (fix)
> Upgrade=major version (new software)
No…
Update = newer software
Upgrade = better software
Key words: 'date' and 'grade'. 'date' in this context refers to when something was released. 'grade' in this context refers to fitness for a particular purpose.
Don't Apple and Google do the same thing? If you want Safari 6 on your iOS device, you need to upgrade to iOS 6. Similarly if you want Google's latest built-in browser on Android, you have to upgrade to Deep Fried Mars Bar. (You can download a separate browser, but then that's an option on Windows too.) So Microsoft haven't invented the idea of tying the browser version to the OS version; in fact they're merely jumping on a bandwagon.
Apple also has no problem making clear distinctions as to what is considered old and unsupported. Their OS updates are also free or significantly cheaper than Winblows updates so your expectations should be different. Microsoft is still actively taking money for win 7 and choosing not to upgrade the browser for an OS where there should really be no issues in porting it just to get people to pay out hundreds for win8.
@Toadwarrior: You have noticed that the cheaper Apple updates are on an annual basis, but the more expensive MS updates are three-to-four yearly.
Also, my G5 which was purchased in (IIRC) 2006 has a discontinued OS, whereas my Win machine from about the same time which came with XP (released 2001) is still supported.
"What's so special about IE10 that it can't be made to work with the older OS, now that the final code is in the can?"
Mostly due to the fact that MS can't tell the difference between OS, GUI and Apps and is trying to force competition out by tying all three so tightly you can't replace any single component with third party software.
"Microsoft takes great pains to ensure that each new version of Windows remains backward compatible with older applications. But if Internet Explorer is any indication, writing a modern application for Windows 8 that still runs on older platforms is a lot harder than it sounds."
But what does the MSIE situation got to do with backwards compatibility?
Nothing of course... Being backwards compatible only means that a new version can do everything the older version could. So Win8 being backwards compatible means that it can do / use everything which Windows 7 could.
Or put differently: Office 2010 being backwards compatible means that it can still open documents which date from the Office '97 or Office 2003 era. NOT that it can open documents produced by the upcoming Office 2012.
There are tons of corporate applications that rely on IE's APIs and break if not 100% compatible. Not only that, they do version checks of IE and won't run if higher than they are expecting. Fortunately, most of those kinds of apps at work I can get to work with IE9 if I use compatibility mode. Not all of them though. I think a lot if that stems from Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot with their own development tools that tie IE to the app to tie the code to Microsoft.
"But if Internet Explorer is any indication, writing a modern application for Windows 8 that still runs on older platforms is a lot harder"
The problem is IE is NOT a userland app, it's source is embedded in the OS and reused all over the place in the GUI. MS have never presented a believable justification for embedding IE this way and pretty obviously only did it for anticompetive reasons - it conveniently became impossible to remove the steaming POS just at the time regulators were starting to ask questions about monopoly abuse.
Once embedded this way, changing the OS layer is guaranteed to bork portability. Perhaps the biggest question is why MS are even trying to backport to Win7, they don't normally miss any chance to drive migration to the new shiny or care if customers get screwed over for not migrating.
Everyone I know has an inherent distrust for Microsoft software (well, except one person I know, but he's in denial). Who would be daring enough to use IE10? There are so many better choices today, that are more conformant to open web standards, and don't leave the computer open to attack.
I would upgrade to IE10 only to make sure that if a program, or a guest user comes in and finds a way to visit web pages through IE10 or employs the rendering engine (Trident?), then I might be (a big MIGHT) a bit safer over older versions (and I don't honestly believe that, probably why I don't let outsiders use my computers).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
