←back to thread

222 points richbowen | 9 comments | | HN request time: 1.012s | source | bottom
1. ghaff ◴[] No.43520251[source]
Unless it's (maybe) mainfraame software, your software is going to break with an OS update. O you can maybe keep it working for a while in a VM, but the idea that you'll keep a software binary working forever is, for practical purposes, mostly silly.
replies(4): >>43520303 #>>43520319 #>>43520324 #>>43520367 #
2. Aachen ◴[] No.43520303[source]
Is it? I'm pretty sure Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 continued to function on Windows Vista (released some ten years after the game) and in Windows 7 everything besides saving worked, and iirc there was a trick for that as well. These things can last a long time

Weird example perhaps but that's one of the oldest totally unmaintained things I used back in my Windows days. WINE may also be a way to run older Windows wares without needing a whole VM setup

On Android, I also use software written for Android 4 on Android 10 without problems. The permission model got more strict so it asks you for giving some blanket permissions because those weren't granular at that SDK/API version (iirc network and storage access are two of the three main ones), but after that one-time confirmation it works perfectly, and from f-droid I also trust that it doesn't abuse these permissions

Of course, there's also plenty of counterexamples. GOG exists for a reason, patching up games to run on modern OSes. I guess it's a risk but I don't generally expect most things to break with every version upgrade

3. mixermachine ◴[] No.43520319[source]
Windows and Android are OK to pretty good when it comes to backward compatibility.

MacOS Software sadly does break sometimes.

4. nikau ◴[] No.43520324[source]
It's called open source - I'm confident in 30 years time there will still be a vim port to whatever OS is in vogue.
replies(1): >>43520392 #
5. erwincoumans ◴[] No.43520367[source]
Windows backward compatibility counter example: Paint Shop Pro 7.04 still works great here after almost a quarter century.
replies(2): >>43520520 #>>43520536 #
6. ghaff ◴[] No.43520392[source]
Port is the operative word there.

Proprietary binaries may work but there's no guarantee depending upon how the software was written.

replies(1): >>43520673 #
7. ghaff ◴[] No.43520520[source]
Microsoft generally strives for pretty good backward compatibility. Especially for, relatively speaking, simpler software.
8. hypercube33 ◴[] No.43520536[source]
Somewhere buried on the Microsoft site there is a page that says they are committed to getting any 32bit windows software or above working and they have a separate support team for. I assume they are the Compatibility team.
9. nikau ◴[] No.43520673{3}[source]
End of the day I don't care if it's same binary or not, i just want my apps and tooling to work the way they have always worked.