[REBOL] Re: What's native?
From: carl:cybercraft at: 22-Jun-2004 17:42
>> And while we (well I am, anyway:) are talking about catching on, this makes
>> for interesting reading...
>> And especially for those who think Microsoft got where it is today mostly
>> through dodgy business practices.
>Aha. Well, i find it a bit confusing. For one Peoples feel forced to upgrade
>and upgrade, because Office N is not compatible with Office N + 1. OTOH MS
>does everything to run apps from 1983, and Joel says "see, they stay
>compatible". Maybe its tricky to be compatible to both.
I thought that too, and know of someone who was stuck with Win3.1 for a while due to
having to wait until a vital piece of software had been converted to Win95. Still, it
does look like they tried to keep third-party apps running, which seemed less important
on competing platforms. I posted the link mainly as an example of how to keep users
using a platform.
>And then Joel says this:
>"(Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore
>when I say things like "nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people,"
>and so on and so forth.)"
>I guess the MSDN Magazine Camp defines "nobody" similar, and argues nobody is
>using such old software. so what?
>But he says too: People have no problems with all this web-apps. Which don't
>have native L&F. And web-apps rule. So..
Yes. Maybe the Web is changing people's expectations about how apps should behave.
-- Carl Read