Microsoft does have a reputation for ungodly levels of backwards compatibility. You can still run the oldest Windows 95 programs today, still open the oldest Word documents, etc.

The issue with “quality” is that it's really subjective. As someone remembering the switch from Windows 98 (DOS-based) to Windows 2000 (NT-based), the boost in subjective quality was immense. But to someone who's already been on Linux for years, it would have looked like playing catch-up.

That's how computers and software work by default. It's an entirely different business philosophy. We can gain more market share but having a just works software environment for as many people as possible VS we can resell people the same software over and over again.

You're impressed that they managed to fill their diaper for so long without any leaks? Linux can read the oldest unix file, compile and run the oldest programs. Their "backwards compatability" is entirely a self created problem, they realized they can capture more value, in the short term, if users only see a binary so they have to implement a technically flawed solution.

Everything’s a trade off. Take something from 30 year ago written in a less popular language with a compiler that no one is maintaining, or that you might not even be able to find a copy of.

You can’t compile the source for modern systems, but the windows binary still runs.

Distributing the source also doesn’t solve the backwards compatibility problem even if it does ameliorate it. A compiler can’t paper over every compatibility problem.

Linux definitely has others to catch up. The only reason I switched to a Linux box is not how great it is for users, but 1) it is a dev box for system programming studies, 2) MSFT willingly trash Windows

Last I checked, the only way to run a 16 bit game from my childhood is on Linux. Very easy. Odd to congratulate Microsoft on backwards compatibility when they are not doing better than Linux.

They are still doing better than Linux. Try running a 16-bit Linux game from your childhood on... anything.

> a 16-bit Linux game from your childhood

Ah the fond memories of playing 16-bit native Linux games in 1987

I almost explained that was not meant literally but I thought it was obvious enough...

If it was meant figuratively one has to wonder what point you're trying to get across.

Mainline linux never supported 16 bit cpus.

> You can still run the oldest Windows 95 programs today, still open the oldest Word documents, etc.

No. You can't. Games requiring old DirectX versions will crash in subtle ways. A lot of programs are badly rendered on Windows 10 (for some reason Windows scales some UI elements but other not).

Yeah, the "Microsoft Works" product was considered an oxymoron

I think they went too Moneyball and figured telemetry and metrics could solve everything. McNamara fallacy and all that

NT kernel is pretty solid and thr earlier NT kernel OS such as Win 2000 and XP are solid too. They definitely did not have the security features modern OSes have but security always evolves.

I mean NT is still way more advanced and modern than Linux will ever be, per definition. NT implements a lot of modern security architectures right into the kernel, while Linux inherently just lacks a lot of them.

But apart from NT I can't think of a lot more solid products that came out of Microsoft.

I think MS SQL Server is fine? Office is good if you ignore anything after 2013...VS debugger is good, but VS itself is bloated.

Meh, not many indeed. Anyway they adopted the beta to user and improve on the way mindset long time ago. Windows terminal was not very good back then but now it is OK.

I think there’s a difference between a product having problems and needing a restart once in a while and the product actively behaving in an undesirable way.

Yes, the famous blue screen of death during live presentation of Windows 95 by Bill Gates.

Quantity yes, quality no.