![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is something to say for forward compatibility too, up to a degree. If we were to be dogmatic and insist on dismissing all modern stuff, and for example, decided to stick with Windows 2000, we would exclude and thus waste tons of hardware too, be it this time newer hardware.
The ideal situation would be if we would stick with all we have now and use it optimally, and not produce new stuff for a certain amount of years. What OS would then be the most useful, if we wanted to be able to use most hard- and software from let's say 1995 until 2025?
Backward & forward compatibility comes mainly down to cpu speed, 32bit vs 64bit CPU architecture, and minimum RAM requirement for modern apps and maximum RAM allowance for older hardware.
Of course we could install an older OS on an older computer and a newer OS a newer computer, but I aim to focus on 1 OS that fits all, so that I can learn to understand this OS through and through, and install it to any system I use or make usable for others, whether this system is old or new. That is the ideal scenario.
Now if I find both an older and a newer OS that both have the same back- and forward compatibility, I would still, of course, choose for the oldest of the two.
While 64bit OSes CAN run 64bit AND 32bit programs, they CAN NOT run on 32bit hardware.
So an OS I chose must have a 32bit option as 32bit is a must as to not lose 32bit hardware. I much rather lose the 64bit software than the 32bit hardware. They should not have upgraded from 32bit to 64bit in the first place.
Both Windows XP and Windows 7 come in view since they can both run on older and newer hardware and both have a 32bit and 64bit version. The question now is which one of the two has the best back to forward compatibility?
I must underline that I am open to install Windows XP/7 32bit on an older computer and the same OS on a newer computer. Same OS is important to me, but architecture support may differ per computer, no problem.
I would go for:
Windows XP 32bit has better compatibility with older software than Windows 7 32 bit, while Windows 7 64 bit has better compatibility than Windows XP 64bit has with newer software.
Dealbreakers :
Windows XP 32bit also runs 16bit programs (however, Windows 7 can run 86box emulator for this)
Windows 7 has some telemetry (however this can be blocked)
Windows XP has source code leaked
Windows 7 supports more messaging apps
WIndows 7 64bit allows for Linux+GUI emulation
Windows 7 has better support for browsers (Wire messaging app)
The ideal situation would be if we would stick with all we have now and use it optimally, and not produce new stuff for a certain amount of years. What OS would then be the most useful, if we wanted to be able to use most hard- and software from let's say 1995 until 2025?
Backward & forward compatibility comes mainly down to cpu speed, 32bit vs 64bit CPU architecture, and minimum RAM requirement for modern apps and maximum RAM allowance for older hardware.
Of course we could install an older OS on an older computer and a newer OS a newer computer, but I aim to focus on 1 OS that fits all, so that I can learn to understand this OS through and through, and install it to any system I use or make usable for others, whether this system is old or new. That is the ideal scenario.
Now if I find both an older and a newer OS that both have the same back- and forward compatibility, I would still, of course, choose for the oldest of the two.
While 64bit OSes CAN run 64bit AND 32bit programs, they CAN NOT run on 32bit hardware.
So an OS I chose must have a 32bit option as 32bit is a must as to not lose 32bit hardware. I much rather lose the 64bit software than the 32bit hardware. They should not have upgraded from 32bit to 64bit in the first place.
Both Windows XP and Windows 7 come in view since they can both run on older and newer hardware and both have a 32bit and 64bit version. The question now is which one of the two has the best back to forward compatibility?
I must underline that I am open to install Windows XP/7 32bit on an older computer and the same OS on a newer computer. Same OS is important to me, but architecture support may differ per computer, no problem.
I would go for:
- An OS not older than Windows XP because older OSes do not have enough forward compatibility
- An OS not older than Windows XP because older OSes does not support VirtualBox, which I need to run Linux for development
- An OS that has a 32bit option, as to not lose compatibility with 32bit CPU's.
- An OS that has a 64bit option, as to not lose compatibility with 64bit CPU's.
- An OS that has little to no telemetry
- An OS that has source code leaked
Windows XP 32bit has better compatibility with older software than Windows 7 32 bit, while Windows 7 64 bit has better compatibility than Windows XP 64bit has with newer software.
Dealbreakers :
Windows XP 32bit also runs 16bit programs (however, Windows 7 can run 86box emulator for this)
Windows 7 has some telemetry (however this can be blocked)
Windows XP has source code leaked
Windows 7 supports more messaging apps
WIndows 7 64bit allows for Linux+GUI emulation
Windows 7 has better support for browsers (Wire messaging app)
