this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
114 points (87.0% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
6276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I’m no Windows expert but I wonder why they don’t offer a “Windows Now” type product that breaks backwards compatibility but is more secure. Something that doesn’t even come with cmd.exe because Powershell exists. (Not that it would solve the issue in the article. This is more an aside.) Windows RT was probably not that. From what I understand, it was a “Windows But Weirdly Limited” product. I mean full Windows that can run reasonably modern software but does away with all the backwards compatibility stuff only certain businesses need.
Apple is ruthless about that and it doesn’t seem to hurt them. Linux distros barely bother because you can always find a way to run an old version if you really want to. It’s kind of neat that Windows can still run Excel 1.0 or whatever but as a non-Windows user, it seems like they could break with the past and fix a lot of security issues for a fraction of what they’re spending on A.I. PowerPoints or whatever.
Windows's entire selling point is backwards-compatibility, maybe except the ARM version.
Yes, one of the factors that contributed to the demise of Windows Mobile was the lack of backwards-compatibility for apps between 7, 8, an 10.