R
Rob R. Ainscough
I think what Jim is saying is actually simple:
1. Improve don't re-invent
2. If you have to re-invent then Provide clean automated migration path for
existing products
3. "nobody is obligated" -- sure, I'm not obligated to buy my power from
PG&E
How would you think Microsoft would respond if some years ago Intel and/or
AMD said, we're gonna develop new instruction sets from scratch -- oh, BTW
you better start re-writing your OS and tools from scratch cause they won't
work on our old CPU instruction set. What do you think Microsoft would do?
Cor or anyone -- would do you think they would do?? You get the point now!?
Jim has a very valid point, Microsoft survived because Intel did retain
compatibility -- Intel survived because they did NOT require a new OS for
every new CPU (Apple was not so lucky). But Microsoft have shown NO such
favors to those that develop software to keep their products alive. In
fact, Microsoft have consistantly told us to "start over".
1. Improve don't re-invent
2. If you have to re-invent then Provide clean automated migration path for
existing products
3. "nobody is obligated" -- sure, I'm not obligated to buy my power from
PG&E
How would you think Microsoft would respond if some years ago Intel and/or
AMD said, we're gonna develop new instruction sets from scratch -- oh, BTW
you better start re-writing your OS and tools from scratch cause they won't
work on our old CPU instruction set. What do you think Microsoft would do?
Cor or anyone -- would do you think they would do?? You get the point now!?
Jim has a very valid point, Microsoft survived because Intel did retain
compatibility -- Intel survived because they did NOT require a new OS for
every new CPU (Apple was not so lucky). But Microsoft have shown NO such
favors to those that develop software to keep their products alive. In
fact, Microsoft have consistantly told us to "start over".