> At one point, Microsoft's QC was legendary
I have been Microsoft-adjacent for 30 years, and at no point in that time have I been aware of Microsoft having a reputation for "quality".
I have been Microsoft-adjacent for 30 years, and at no point in that time have I been aware of Microsoft having a reputation for "quality".
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.
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.
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.
Ah the fond memories of playing 16-bit native Linux games in 1987
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).
I think they went too Moneyball and figured telemetry and metrics could solve everything. McNamara fallacy and all that
But apart from NT I can't think of a lot more solid products that came out of Microsoft.
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.