home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!amigans!durie!liam
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: @$#^@$%# 2.04!
- Message-ID: <liam.05bd@durie.amigans.gen.nz>
- From: liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
- Date: 26 Jul 92 16:11:40 GMT+12
- References: <1992Jul24.022407.26450@Armstrong.EDU> <AHANSFOR.92Jul24104956@graywacke.wpi.edu>
- Distribution: world
- Organization: It's Home, really...
- Lines: 19
-
- In article <AHANSFOR.92Jul24104956@graywacke.wpi.edu> ahansfor@graywacke.wpi.edu (Andrew L. Hansford) writes:
- >
- >Downwards compatibility?? Why? Systems tend to migrate forward and
- >are held back by having to make things forward compatible. ( works
- >on 1.3 and above or 3.2 and above depending on your platform ) Even
- >then some things don't work.
- Downward compatibility is generally an OS term, ie the OS is downwardly
- compatible rather than the applications being downward compatible with an
- old level of the OS. The reason for the OS writer striving for the maximum
- backward compatibility, even to the extent of little hacks to support some
- suspect applications coding (as C= has done for 2.04), is to allow the
- maximum numbers of users to move forward, while maintaining their existing
- investment in applications software.
-
- --
- Liam Greenwood ------ liam@durie.amigans.gen.nz ------ Wanganui, N.Z.
- Don't tell my Mother I'm a programmer,
- she thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel
-
-