As usual I'm quoting from a number of posts.

As for complaining that a game doesn't support 98, you might as well complain that games don't support DOS, or that GC games don't support the N64.

The problem with this analogy though is that the GC is a fundamentally different architecture (both in terms of hardware & software) than the N64. Same with DOS vs Windows (DOS is 16 bit real mode, whereas Windows 9x & greater is 32bit protected mode).

Different operating systems have different functions, and in order to do some things you need to either abandon the old, or waste time writing workarounds for it.

Really? Like what specifically? The thing is that WinXP (or 2K), while more stable due to architectural design choices (such as the abandonment of compatitibility with legacy hardware/software) it is still a 32bit OS running on x86 architecture. And so is Win9x. I am not aware of any fundamental difference that prevents code written for a 32 bit windows platform to run under Win9x. Exception: when Microsoft denounces Win 9x and thus support for it ceases, but this isn't a case of it can't be done, but rather that MS is pushing consumers to a new platform for economic reasons). Note I'm not trying to start a MS bashing type debate (like those that are oh so trendy on /.), but rather just pointing out that the reasons we seem to upgrade have little to do with technical limiations of current OS's, and more to do with being "pushed" in the direction of newer and (I use the term loosely) "better" OS's.

Bottom line XP is way to expensive for the performance improvements it brings! If you get it with a nes PC then no need to go back to 98.

Exactly. Why should I spend the $150 to "upgrade" when the only real thing XP brings is stability? (which IMO is something that should just be a given, if you purchase an OS it should work)

Yes, I was about to say the same thing. XP becomes happy at 512

But why should I be forced to upgrade to get stability? I can understand if you want greater performance upgrades are necessary, but stability isn't a perk, it's an expectation of the systems we buy (or at least, it should be).

An analogy: if you buy a TV, and then later decide that you want picture-in-picture, or high-definition reception, etc, then you'd go out and buy a new TV to get the new features. And this is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, if you bought a TV, and the thing simply didn't work, yeah you'd buy a new TV, but you'd never buy from the same manufacturer simply because you'd feel like you got screwed. Why is it that we have the expectation of quality in tangible products like TV's, cars, etc, etc, but not in software?

And spare me the "but software design is such a complex process" argument. I'm a comp sci major, so I can appreciate this point, but that doesn't excuse sofware manufacturers from releasing updates that address stability for free.

</rant> hehe


PZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Reading: J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" -- Last Read: Kenneth Lux's "Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality"
This comment was edited on Dec 8, 21:28.