Earlier quoted context omitted.
As manufacturers continue to make increasingly questionable design choices, it's natural that users will become hesitant. You can get a possibly not-that-much-faster system, at the risk of losing functionality that has worked for a long time. In the same timeframe, we went from a 200 MHz Pentium MMX to a 1 GHz Pentium 3. ...and most if not all of your existing hardware and software would continue to work unchanged, i…
> and most if not all of your existing hardware and software would continue to work unchanged It’s funny how backwards compatibility back then allowed us to have massive progress, by making gradual steps forward possible. These days, where we are seeing less and less real progress, we now hear many programmers claiming we have to sacrifice and shed backwards compatibility if we want further progress. (I’m looking at…
Tech debt was lower back then.. maybe all of our practices were worse, but the code bases were thousands of times smaller which made up for a lot.
Heck Agile hadn't been invented yet back then. You got requirements and got to design the core technology first. There was no such thing as an MVP hack and all of a sudden you had a back end that had millions of lines of code and 10 layers of abstraction that was all built on a bad design.