You are assuming that Microsoft *want* to maintain backward compatibility.

While it makes life easier for customers (being able to use several versions of the application in parallel), it doesn't lead to maximised sales for Microsoft. If they deliberately break compatibility with every release, then it forces people to upgrade years before they want to, if they want to continue doing business.

That's certainly the case with my employers - they've had to upgrade the entire global organisation at once (well, a staged rollout, that's taken 10 months so far, but you get the idea).

P.S.: the subject of my comment was inspired by this. I've just recently started reading it, and am finding it far more enjoyable than the actual films so far! (although I've only just started Episode II)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• You're confusing backward and forward compatibility - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT
  • "Fairly well known to go to absurd lengths to [maintain backward compatibility]" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT
    • "Fairly well known to go to absurd lengths to [maintain backward compatibility]" - Authored by: Tyro on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT
      • Ouch! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
    • Again, that's forward not backward compatibility - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 17 2012 @ 06:53 PM EDT
      • You mis-understood me - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 19 2012 @ 12:01 AM EDT
    • The real test - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT