Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>> Right. And the fact that the design of Unix is overly complex and 
>> incorporates several decades of backwards compatibility is unrelated? ;-)
> 
>   It's not like Windows is any better in that regard.

Hey come on, everything simply straight in the registry, so how hard can
it be?

Oh, wait...

>   At least Apple dares to break backwards compatibility with ancient
> software and architectures. It hasn't slowed them down much.

Yes. But one reason for that is that Apple was almost dying some years
ago and the userbase was *small*, so breaking backward compatibility
didn't piss of a lot of users (it couldn't, 'cause there wasn't).

Vista's getting a lot of angry comments now and it hasn't got it's
footprint out (yet). If MS broke backward compatibility totally now, how
would you think Vista would be selling?

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message