An office suite.
I occasionally write documents in Office 97. Yes, in emulation. And despite the emulation, it loads quicker and has no lag.
Some software does "rot" in time. But a lot doesn't. And we shouldn't be afraid of keeping things running.
An office suite.
I occasionally write documents in Office 97. Yes, in emulation. And despite the emulation, it loads quicker and has no lag.
Some software does "rot" in time. But a lot doesn't. And we shouldn't be afraid of keeping things running.
The world is progressing and software will be obsoleted. Yes, not all of it and not at the same speed (MS obviously being top of the line when it comes to compatibility and being able support it), but inevitably so.
Continuing the Word example, enterprise users may indeed be better off with the most recent versions of MS Office suite, because of SharePoint and all other integrations in use. For a regular user, the best Word version to use is 20 years old.
FWIW, my wife stuck with ~15 year old Office version on her own computers, in spite - or rather, because - of having used more recent ones at work; it was only until this year that she was begrudgingly forced to update, as Windows 7 got EOL-ed and it was just simpler to download the current one than to dig out old disk images.
Enshittification is real. And so is the larger zeitgeist in software development and design, of declaring the users are idiots to justify disempowering them (whether through laziness or malice).
About the only new useful feature in the past decade, that became almost universal and that justifies subscriptions somewhat, is the "collaborative" aspect of syncing between devices. But note that the primary use of that is to be able to edit your work on multiple devices, which is effectively a per-application workaround over OS vendors being greedy and unable to get their collective shit together.