10 Comments on Backwards Compatibility Windows 7

Chuko on Thu, 12th Mar 2009 10:38


Some kind soul could explain why there are programs running in Xp perfectamene also do not in Vista? What, you have a list of things that do not work and are adapting to a certain operating system software? If so would not be normal that they had done before, if that makes any sense? You imagine that openoffice does not work in the next Ubuntu and another in the present? Chicken is not often ride?

Ernesto on Thu, 12th Mar 2009 11:00


The problem with Vista is that the kernel has been changed so that in some respects remains 100% compatibility. They may also affect new versions of the libraries and security policies (in the case of significant changes in Vista that sense).

A Linux does that affect you and that further changes to Windows versions. What happens is that free software usually recycled and adapt easily to new versions, you can download it and try to compile OpenOffice version 1 in Ubuntu Jaunty Beta and have an optimized version for Jaunty components. When the industry went from kernel 2.4 to 2.6 if there were several problems in some applications but in many cases solventaro. When the industry went from kernel 2.4 to 2.6 if there were several problems in some applications but in many cases were resolved without problems thanks to the free nature of the applications. If Linux would have owned the transition may have been a bit more traumatic.

Proprietary software required to be the manufacturer that makes this process and in many cases it is hoped the new version (and so can be sold) or just flash an update that is what they have done several with applications for Vista.

In Mac OS X this phenomenon also occurs in some programs with the version change. I remember the passage from Tiger to Leopard brought with Photoshop and other problems in older programs.

xender on Thu, 12th Mar 2009 15:43


I seem to remember to support pre-Windows Vista, Windows 7 would support the virtualization. From my point of view a good solution that allows much more freedom to implement new ideas.

iago on Fri, 13th Mar 2009 17:50


Linux is not exactly an example of compatibility, taking into account that people are the **** kernel binary compatibility between versions of the kernel It is precisely a proprietary OS, Solaris, one of the best examples for compatibility concerns, having no less than about 8 years backwards binary compatibility.

Sincerely, * I * the fact that Linux has no such trouble is not that software is free, but a version of the kernel out every so often, and therefore each version no radical changes. If you wait 7 years and you get a very different kernel and I'll tell you whether or not there are problems.

And I agree with xender that virtualization is a wise decision for these purposes, there is nothing worse than dragging design errors because of backward compatibility, but on the other side is necessary, so here goes that virtualization or painted.

kra on Sat, 14th Mar 2009 14:30


Do not understand why people talk as if w7 view and would have no relationship.
Eventually the w7 is a better view. Or would develop 20 OS in parallel.

iago on Fri, 14th Mar 2009 16:44


kra, yes of course, W7 is enhanced Vista. Debian And Ubuntu is a "makeup" (I'm not underestimating the work they do, mind you) and not stopped talking about Debian and Ubuntu separately.

Ernesto Allely on Sun, 15th Mar 2009 21:13


I do not think I made it very clear what he meant to refer to say that the open source nature of Linux helped to upgrade between versions., I will explain my point of view with a little more depth.

First it should be noted that it seems clear that Linux, like most large open source projects is modeled Bazaar development. As a result, many users make contributions to the project and as recommended in this model there are many code updates. This allows, as it Iago suggests that programs can be easily adapted to the project to be little change between versions (with exceptions of branch changes as it did going from the 2.4 to 2.6).

But the fact remains that if you made a difference in the kernel, it is well documented and the affected software developers can program the change from the beta version and study the same without problems. The opposite of this happened with Windows 95 where many developers complained about changes in undocumented Windows API that made difficult to adapt programs to the then new system.

One last thing that favors any adjustments is the community. As the free software if the developer (or company if you will tell yourself) can not or can not adapt the code to the new version is possible if the community is active enough to develop two different versions. This comes with Drupal CMS maintains two versions for different versions of PHP (yes, I know this last statement may have several shades).

In short and in summary. The fact that the software is opened in my humble opinion is crucial for Linux to confront successfully the various changes that occur in the system. Although I insist, is only an opinion.

Ernesto Allely on Sun, 15th Mar 2009 21:13


I do not think I made it very clear what he meant to refer to say that the open source nature of Linux helped to upgrade between versions., I will explain my point of view with a little more depth.

First it should be noted that it seems clear that Linux, like most large open source projects is modeled Bazaar development. As a result, many users make contributions to the project and as recommended in this model there are many code updates. This allows, as it Iago suggests that programs can be easily adapted to the project to be little change between versions (with exceptions of branch changes as it did going from the 2.4 to 2.6).

But the fact remains that if you made a difference in the kernel, it is well documented and the affected software developers can program the change from the beta version and study the same without problems. The opposite of this happened with Windows 95 where many developers complained about changes in undocumented Windows API that made difficult to adapt programs to the then new system.

One last thing that favors any adjustments is the community. As the free software if the developer (or company if you will tell yourself) can not or can not adapt the code to the new version is possible if the community is active enough to develop two different versions. This comes with Drupal CMS maintains two versions for different versions of PHP (yes, I know this last statement may have several shades).

In short and in summary. The fact that the software is opened in my humble opinion is crucial for Linux to confront successfully the various changes that occur in the system. Although I insist, is only an opinion.

iago on Mon, 16th Mar 2009 0:42


To have the source code available help, of course. That good documentation helps a lot (although not all free software projects can boast about it), of course.

While I believe that Linux should follow a different philosophy if it is to be a serious project, and I say this in a constructive spirit. Honestly, my opinion on the lack of backwards compatibility between versions of the same branch is ..., well, so bad that I prefer not to comment explicitly. Something that works in x.versionmenor = 1 does not work in x.versionmenor = 2 is an insult, in a production environment you want to update a version without having to read you the CHANGELOG to know how many things have to change to keep running. And this is what I apply to many other projects (SL or otherwise) who do not hand shakes break compatibility between versions of the same branch, including real shit you might expect perfectly to a posterior branch. In fact I have come to pass, hallucinate, a 8.1.3 version was not backwards compatible with 8.1.1!

martin on Mon, 27th Apr 2009 4:18


It was only a problem of inoperability!

What do you think of Backwards Compatibility Windows 7? ...