Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:43:30 -0000
Does anyone know of a link that describes Microsoft's official stance on
backwards compatibility?
The terms upwards and backwards compatibility are a little ambiguous, and
depend on which way you're looking through the telescope. In this context, I
refer to the expectation that products compiled on a higher O/S version can
be distributed and run on older O/S versions.
Most people would expect upwards compatibility. For instance, if you
compiled a well-behaved program under W2K then it should run under W2003.
Few people who have been involved in large-scale software development,
across different platforms (e.g. UNIX), would expect the latter. For
instance, if a "versioned" struct had been changed in size then older
versions of the O/S may not know how to handle it.
I personally would not expect backwards compatibility (as defined above)
because I've seen the issues that can arise. However, I'm looking for a link
to any statement on the subject in relation to the Windows O/S
Tony Proctor
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: Hector Santos
- Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: Gary Chanson
- Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- Prev by Date: Re: Converting from utf-8 to Ansi directly
- Next by Date: Re: Converting from utf-8 to Ansi directly
- Previous by thread: Re: Short Filenames in Task Manager
- Next by thread: Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- Index(es):