Hopefully they do it right. Classic sucked and was wayy too obvious.

This kind of move is long overdue.

Windows became more and more unwieldy and unstable by trying to retain backwards compatibility with every dot-matrix printer ever produced.

That said, it should give Mac OS X a real boost as people who are suddenly FORCED to replace ancient equipment look around at THE alternative. If you've got to start at square one, you may as well get out of the sewer and start on dry land.

...they can even get their new OS working right and they want to add the ability to run older programs too?

Anybody remember Quark 3? That's where MS is right now they just can't get beyond that development environment.

So will their version of Classic run an XP or Vista environment? This should actaully be quite easy for them. They own VirtualPC (and here I'm talking about the Windows version for virtualizing Windows within Windows, not the one that emulates Win inside a Mac).

The real challenge for them will be if they can duplicate Carbon. Carbon eased (somewhat) the transition for developers to convert their programs from OS9 to OSX. If they make Classic work too well, or if the development path to the new OS is too steep (ie, no WinCarbon), everyone will just be booting Windows 7 only so they can run WinClassic.

I like how Monde referred to Balmer as balding.

You can't polish a t***.

Because breaking API compatibility with existing applications results in a major and expensive engineering effort to re-write apps to fit the new API; test, debug, QA, etc. This puts Windows 7 in a catch-22 situation. Vendors don't want to invest all that time and money developing for a new platform that has a tiny user base; and the user base won't grow very quickly if the apps and drivers don't exist to attract them. Given the pain users and vendors alike have endured with Vista, they're not likely to jump on this 'next-big-thing' in much of a hurry. The end result of this is that, for the first time, MS growth could really be threatened. Possibly reversed.

Apple have managed to dodge this issue twice now. In part because they've provided solid technical solutions to the problem (Classic & Rosetta) but also because back then their quarter sales for new systems measured in units of 100k instead of the millions they enjoy today. For Apple sales ramped up quickly enough; but if several years after releasing Windows 7, Microsoft were only shipping the kind of numbers that Apple see today, then there would be blood on the floor in Redmond, and shareholders would be torching the buildings.

Having said that, I don't see that MS have got a lot of choice. They've got to do something radical with their underlying architecture to break the back of the market for PC malware and prepare for the future. Just changing the body shape, the tires and giving it a new glossy coat of paint isn't going to cut the mustard 5-10, etc years from now. Especially with the competition (Apple & Linux) constantly pushing, improving and innovating.

Windows 7 will present yet another window of opportunity for the likes of Apple. A time for them to capitalise on Microsoft's unpopularity and the chaos that surrounds change. They should have 2-3 years max from when Windows 7 ships to grab as much market share as they can before new application and new driver availability hit critical mass.

What happens after that depends on Microsoft. If Windows 7 turns out to be something really amazing under the hood, and positions itself well for the future, then everyone else is going to be in for a really tough ride. But if it turns out to be another lemon like Vista, then Microsoft could see their market share sliding away from them.

"Or, as some might say, Apple got rid of it because they don't give a damn what their users want/need. "

I switched to the Mac with the release of Jaguar because of this cut off of compatibility. Some people consider greater security, stability, and multi-tasking to be a feature.

"OK, so your saying that having the large marketshare is a disadvantage? Hmmm, and to think all those "MS is a monopoly!" people were thinking it was an advantage."

A big market share is bad for a corporation because it needs to continue to expand and Microsoft isn't making money off any other markets it has entered.

"Which, from your previous section, I can only gather is a good thing for MS. As the smaller market share means they can start making rash and abrupt decisions without worrying about keeping everyone happy!"

Shrinking market share is not good. That is what is bad with having a monopoly for the company - the only way you can go is down.

"And, so they're going to make Windows 7 more usable and capable (because it would have much better support for older programs, which is the biggest gripe about vista), and that's going to drive away more customers?"

Because the only reason developers release Windows only programs is that they never want to update them and now they will be much slower with no updates in sight with Windows 7.

"Why should this cost MS market share? Everyone is always complaining that MS's problem is their desire for complete backward compatibility, as well an insecure piece of OS (left that way for the backwards compatibility). And one suggestion is that they should do what Apple did. Start over."

The thing is if they start over, they might as well do so with the Mac or Linux who already have a large and growing base of applications designed better and with better development tools available for free. If Windows really cut off compatibility then they would already have to have applications re-written.

"So, they now are foregoing the backwards compatibility and this is a 'problem'? Please, oh please, explain why this is more stupidity (leaving out the "MS just sucks so it must be bad" arguments, we all know those already)."

Your the one who can't grasp obvious logic.

Actually I think both of you miss it.

First of all, Windows 7 could come out tomorrow and cut off backwards compatibility and it will mean little. The main users who would have a problem with this are business and power users which upgrade to an OS upon release in the single digits. MS is not like Apple where a new release of OS sees 30% of the base upgrading in the first weekend.

Business users in large part stay one cycle behind MS. There are a lot of businesses now that are just upgrading to XP from Windows 2000 now that Vista is out. So, you are looking at 5-6 years before large enterprises would even think about touching Windows 7.

The majority of Windows sales out of the gate come from end users buying new computers. New computers won't have old software and thus don't have this issue. Sure third party software will be impacted, but the average Joe does not buy much of that other than games.

Developers will adapt, only an idiot would turn a blind eye to their largest market of users.

Moral of the Story: MS could turn off the lights tomorrow on Windows supporting older (read: anything previous to 2k) applications and Apple would not see any huge gains in sales.

"The majority of Windows sales out of the gate come from end users buying new computers. New computers won't have old software and thus don't have this issue. Sure third party software will be impacted, but the average Joe does not buy much of that other than games. "

The majority of Windows sales are to businesses not to home users, so ancient compatibility is a major concern. Wine may end up being the best course for legacy software. It can run quite a lot of Windows only software quite well. The big reason why businesses don't want to use Apple products is that they want them to support all their hardware and software 10 years or more. Also I don't think the individual user understands how costly Microsoft bugs and malware have become or the amount of businesses that are able and willing to migrate. Not every IT department is filled with drones.

"Developers will adapt, only an idiot would turn a blind eye to their largest market of users."

The largest market of users of the future may very well be iPhone users. Linux has taken a big chunk on the server and low end. Apple already has a majority of MP3 players and adding the phone to it was so popular that people were campaigning for it years before Jobs ever released it and they can't keep it in stock now or release it to new markets fast enough. People think of Windows as one platform, but really there are many versions to support. If Windows XP and Windows 7 are significantly different than the market share of the Macs is greater. The only thing similar about Windows XP and 7 may very well be the name. It is like the difference between Mac OS Classic and OS X but without people wanting to migrate.

So, they now are foregoing the backwards compatibility and this is a 'problem'? Please, oh please, explain why this is more stupidity (leaving out the "MS just sucks so it must be bad" arguments, we all know those already).--testicaludo

Well turtleman, the compatibility layer is dopey because it should have been done this time around. Sure, it is the only way to truely upgrade their broke-a** OS, but release it in 2009? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this will cost MS market share. Get it. Windows people will have been patently waiting for an upgrade (one that is worth installing) for the better part of a decade. Oh please, oh please can you explain how that is not idiotic business sense. Even an entity as big as MS can only mess up so many times over so many years. Hence the ongoing migration to Mac by former Windows users. BTW: You're the one that said Windows sucks. While I don't disagree, I didn't post it.

What I will say about Windows is that it is a second rate knock off of OS 9 and is the only OS presently worth installing on a wintel machine. It is 7 years behind OSX at best. Be a windows fanboy if you must, I'm just hoping they hang on to that jewel of a CEO-Ballmer, so that Apple can continue it's rise.

The best you can say is, "how could they have known they'd have to add a compatibility layer?" to which I would say, "How could they not have?" XP's code is just too out of date, it still leverages DOS fer crying out loud.

>apple got away with the classic compatibility layer >because their market share was so small and so loyal.

>Or, as some might say, Apple got rid of it because >they don't give a damn what their users want/need.

This person is saying that Apple got away with HAVING the Classic layer - not that they got away with removing it.

MS$ takes Michael Dell's advice: close the company down and give the shareholders their money back. Vista is garbage, they're losing market share, and it's time they realize it's over.

Not that I'd like to see MS stop up that leak in the boat, but closing up shop is unlikely with a 80 percent market share.

I'd predict, they'll blunder along until they dump Ballmer, then regroup and put something better out in 4 to 6 years. By then, it should be a real dog fight for market share. At that point, it is anyone's guess.

What most of the MS fanboys don't get is that Mac's gains come from switchers. Once switched, these new Mac users swear a pox on MS and never return. The Mac user base is incredibly loyal to the brand. Unless MS comes up with something truely spectacular at a decent price point, they can kiss all those converts goodbye forever. It's a scary thought if you're one of those executives at MS, or for that matter any other computer manufacturer.

But you gotta love Baller, "What, Apple? That iPhone will never catch on." The dude is way to linear in his thinking. Got a problem, throw money at it. See innovation, call it c*** and try to sell something worse. Make an OS that just doesn't work for the plurality of your client base and charge a ton for it. The fish stinks from the head down at that outfit, but fine by me, fine by me.

for the first time, M$ is making an OS with no software base. Go ahead and buy it. Good luck with your legacy stuff running on it. Apple has done this so much that we're all just used to having our software stop working after 10 years (or we just keep around an old machien). M$ does this at their peril. One of the things they've had going for them is that companies dont have to rebuy all their software to stay with M$ OS's. As soon as they have to go and spend $$$ on new SW, they'll consider linux or OSX.

Its an admission that their vista strategy didn't work, that most of their OS code is c*** and they need to start fresh.

I wouldn't be surprised if they came out with a decent OS this time, but it will have to compete on a more level footing.

...because this is the deal that has the potential to break MS, and really cripple them in so many different ways... that's why I support them going through with this.

It'll just really demonstrate what a terrible businessman Ballmer is (though he picked his college friends well).

Still, I'm amazed that the board just rubberstamped him as it did.

The real challenge for them will be if they can duplicate Carbon. Carbon eased (somewhat) the transition for developers to convert their programs from OS9 to OSX.

Actually, they already have it. It's the .Net framework.

I switched to the Mac with the release of Jaguar because of this cut off of compatibility.

You aren't one to talk. You had no mac compatibility to lose, if you just switched over to the mac at 10.3.

A big market share is bad for a corporation because it needs to continue to expand and Microsoft isn't making money off any other markets it has entered.

So what should Apple do? Start making c*** for a while to drop their marketshare? I mean, we don't want them 'winning', if its going to make them start s******* up more.

Because the only reason developers release Windows only programs is that they never want to update them and now they will be much slower with no updates in sight with Windows 7.

That's garbage. Developers make windows only programs because that's where the users are. And I've never seen a developer who just makes a program and then let's it sit. They don't want to sell it just once, they want you to buy upgrade after upgrade.

And only a ms-bigot would argue that developing software that will run for years without the need for updates is a 'bad' thing. I guess you just love paying for updates to software so that they'll work with a new version of an OS.

The majority of Windows sales are to businesses not to home users, so ancient compatibility is a major concern. ...The big reason why businesses don't want to use Apple products is that they want them to support all their hardware and software 10 years or more.

Yeah, damn businesses. Wanting their investments to actually last, and not have to pay for the right to continue using their investments.

But you only have to look at Apple itself to know why they don't want to switch. What did Apple just do two weeks ago, without nary an announcement or warning? Killed their xRAID system. It just disappeared. Ridiculous.

On top of that, Apple has no public policy the enterprise cares about. If your boss said to you tomorrow "Hey, we've decided to switch over the entire company to Macs tomorrow. We need some more info, though. What is Apple's policy on life-cycle maintenance? For how long can we purchase/use 10.5, especially after 10.6 is released? How long will we receive updates to the OS and various applications?"

Where can you get that information? The truth is, you can't. Apple doesn't publish it. In fact, you couldn't even give them a firm answer that they'd issue security patches to 10.5, since Apple doesn't even say they'll fix their current OS.

But you pretend it's all because their drones.

Also I don't think the individual user understands how costly Microsoft bugs and malware have become or the amount of businesses that are able and willing to migrate. Not every IT department is filled with drones.

No, but not every IT dep't is filled with idiots who don't know how to keep malware and viruses off their computers. It ain't that hard.