The is a genuine question that I don’t have the answer to.
I would say that because nobody can muster the consensus on any real policy. There’s plenty of legacy, with many different people and teams responsible, knowledge lost and so on.
And then this requires some sort of unified vision. Despite, eh, all the downsides, Apple can do that. MS can’t.
They’d honestly have to make a separate “neowin” subsystem with new GUI and everything, and make win32 and win64 and all the old tooling optional and parallel. Because their approach to backward compatibility means keeping everything around. They can’t fix the mess maintaining that.
I would say that because nobody can muster the consensus on any real policy. There’s plenty of legacy, with many different people and teams responsible, knowledge lost and so on.
And then this requires some sort of unified vision. Despite, eh, all the downsides, Apple can do that. MS can’t.
They’d honestly have to make a separate “neowin” subsystem with new GUI and everything, and make win32 and win64 and all the old tooling optional and parallel. Because their approach to backward compatibility means keeping everything around. They can’t fix the mess maintaining that.
Thanks I wondered if the backwards compatibility stuff was part of it.
Thanks for what? I’m not knowledgeable, it’s just poking with my finger into the sky
Your response