BlueHat - #3: Paid to Break Things

Time and time again, I've encountered online arguments in which Geek A is telling Geek B that Company C does a poor job of maintaining backward compatibility.
In these cases, I'm never quite sure what it is that Geek A means. Does Geek A have any idea how difficult it is to maintain app level compatibility over the years as the underlying OS changes and evolves?
Maybe Geek A should watch this video...
JoshRoss wrote:I would think that innovation would start at the following website... http://www.innovateonwindowsvista.com However, It could use a little snazzing-up before I would call it innovative. Start by putting up a wall-of-shame for software. I would like to nominate HP printer driver installers.
JoshRoss wrote:While we're cursing installers; SoundMax and ATI, this one goes out to you! PLEASE stop using low-res 8-bit images to fill the background of your crappy, hand-rolled, installers. Without getting too negative, I would like to issue a praise for every curse. THANK YOU windows update team for providing feature complete, minimally intrusive, drivers. The whole process from acquisition, installation, and finally use, works wonderfully!
swax wrote:This just isn't true, first you're asking companies to continually update their software for the latest windows APIs. This just isn't practical for many companies that are 'done' with whatever component, and don't see the need for re-compiling it every x number of years.
The same is true on the receiving end, a new version of windows shouldn't break all the components developed or bought by a company.
And on the customer end imagine if vista really did break all software, do you understand the sheer scale of the situation? Geek A needs to get a job, and see what the real world is like. Many many many companies are still writing their production software in VC6 and VB6.
JoshRoss wrote:I would like to nominate HP printer driver installers.
JoshRoss wrote:If company C follows the best practices, of the time the apps were produced, then fixing breaking changes should be trivial
kettch wrote:What if the customers don't want to still be running windows 95 just because the developers are too lazy/incompetent to change a few API calls?
swax wrote:
kettch wrote:
What if the customers don't want to still be running windows 95 just because the developers are too lazy/incompetent to change a few API calls?
The customers don't need to use windows 95 because of backwards compatibility. That was the entire point, sheesh.
The first bit is hyperbole. You can't break all of the componnts of a program, there are just too many. They could break a few, but there would be a good reason behind doing so.
swax wrote:
The same is true on the receiving end, a new version of windows shouldn't break all the components developed or bought by a company.
And on the customer end imagine if vista really did break all software, do you understand the sheer scale of the situation? Geek A needs to get a job, and see what the real world is like. Many many many companies are still writing their production software in VC6 and VB6.
I would not recommend purchasing software from an abandonware provider. It is very difficult to write high-quality software using these old programs.
This is kind of a dated interview, I'm guessing back in December or something - although very interesting. I'm probably shouting out the obvious, but a lot of people generally 'view' Apple as being innovative. With their great vector based graphics, UI, and security. Then I thought, what's wrong with Microsoft?
Microsoft does employ great minds with urges to implement all new and great features... although, with the compatibility of thousands of devices and hundreds of thousands of applications, Microsoft really has some limitations to what
can, and cannot be done.
Apple for instance, has a good handful of applications... as far as devices; they're fairly all proprietary to Apple. Therefore, they have that room to innovate and play around with new ideas. Jr