Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:16:27 -0800
Contrary to *nixes, there is no such thing as "re-compile it under W2003".
There is such thing as "build it with WIn XXX SDK for Win XXX".
In your build, you can define various values such as _WIN32_WINNT,
_WIN32_WINDOWS, _WIN32_IE. See Platform SDK/Getting started/Using the
Platform SDK/Using the SDK headers.
"Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23sVbST0%23FHA.1676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for the response Gary. My end of the telescope is looking from the
> point of view of the application (i.e. looking at compatibility with
> successive O/S versions) rather than the O/S (i.e. looking at previous
> applications). Anyway, I think we know what we're on about ;-)
>
> However, I'm specifically interested in the compilation process, and the
> prospect of picking up modified *.h files, etc., rather than of explicitly
> taking advantage of new features. For instance, if a program compiles and
> runs OK under W2K, it doesn't immediately follow that if you re-compile it
> under W2003 then the resultant EXE can be safely run back on W2K. This
> isn't
> unreasonable, and I've certainly seen cases where that would fail on some
> UNIX platforms. What I need, to settle a "discussion" here, is a link to
> any
> statement on the subject from Microsoft, or generally in relation to
> Windows.
>
> Tony Proctor
>
> "Gary Chanson" <gjchanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eWS3AK0#FHA.3676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message
>> news:%23t3XVvy%23FHA.532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > 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
>>
>> You're looking through the telescope in the wrong direction.
>> Backward
>> compatibility is when the newer version of the OS will still properly run
>> programs written for the older version. This is a concept that Microsoft
>> believes in and takes to extremes, while Apple scoffs at it.
>>
>> You can not expect the reverse. You can write programs which will
>> run
> on
>> older versions by restricting the APIs you use to the ones supported by
> the
>> older versions, but then you're taking advantage of backward
> compatibility.
>> You can also write programs which are smart enough to run an multiple
>> versions. More then this isn't possible because it would require older
>> versions to be aware of the capabilities of newer versions (where did I
> put my
>> time machine?).
>>
>> --
>>
>> -GJC [MS Windows SDK MVP]
>> -Software Consultant (Embedded systems and Real Time Controls)
>> - http://www.mvps.org/ArcaneIncantations/consulting.htm
>> -gchanson@xxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: Tony Proctor
- Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: Gary Chanson
- Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- From: Tony Proctor
- Statement on backwards compatibility?
- Prev by Date: Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- Next by Date: Re: Process information in kernel mode
- Previous by thread: Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- Next by thread: Re: Statement on backwards compatibility?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
