| ▲ | haunter 5 hours ago |
| > Dropped Windows-on-Itanium (VC-WIN64I) and Windows CE (VC-CE) targets
from Configurations. What a throwback. afaik Windows Server 2008 R2 had Itanium updates until 2020 and paid support until this year. Pretty good run to
say at least |
|
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Glad they kept big endian x86_64, at least. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/c69b5af10a754051274e... |
| |
|
| ▲ | nirui 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I kinda wonder what if Microsoft (or any major software company) would give their engineers a few decades of time just to refactor their existing systems, opposite of piling on new features. Will it result a much cleaner code, better architect, and stable product? The last Windows I daily use was Windows 7 Home (same era with Windows Server 2008). The newer ones don't really improved much featurely from my (user) point of view, and from what I've heard, it's getting more sloppyer every newer version. |
| |
| ▲ | zbentley 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > what if Microsoft would give their engineers a few decades of time just to refactor their existing systems They wouldn't, even if they didn't care about shipping new features. The technical complexity inside Windows/Office/old core MS offerings arises only in small part from ordinary tech debt--that is, things fixable without changing observable behavior. The lion's share of that complexity is because of Microsoft's priority to avoid breaking compatibility (backwards, or with hardware/software combos that work) at all costs. That means that a refactor-only decade would achieve little unless that compatibility priority were changed. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Microsoft did do exactly this with NT. It’s all the crap on top that ruins it. | |
| ▲ | masfuerte 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Windows user-mode innards have been significantly refactored. Many of the core system DLLs that apps link to are just redirects to the actual implementation now. Much of the jank seems to be in the UI. | |
| ▲ | CodesInChaos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's just as likely it would end up as an overengineered mess. And that's without considering backwards compatibility constraints, which are one of the biggest maintenance burdens. | |
| ▲ | egorfine 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This will NOT please the shareholders. And that's all that matters. |
|
|
| ▲ | mrweasel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Make you wonder what they've been testing this on. Even NetBSD doesn't have a recent release for Itanium. Crazy that you can run NetBSD 11.0 on HPPA, but not Itanium, given that HPPA is in some sense the pre-cursor to Itanium. |
| |
| ▲ | mixdup 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Age is probably less relevant than current installed base/active users | |
| ▲ | mondainx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | More than likely in "government"; they are always behind and keeping legacy stuff around. I found Windows 1.0 floppies in a drawer, back-in-the-day. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | p_l 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Honestly more HPPA gear to test against than Itanium |
|
