I’ve often heard that the reason Windows has suffered from bloat and so much has been built on top of ancient underlying technologies, partially to ensure compatibility with old software.
If something like Windows 11 requires specific hardware in order to install it, why does it need to accommodate compatibility for archaic devices/software?
Would it not be preferable for Microsoft to start from scratch with an OS that is considerably more efficient and cut-down for newer devices, similar to something like Apple’s MacOS transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, and just provide security updates for the legacy operating systems that would be in use on un-upgradable hardware?
Windows’ bloat isn’t because they have to maintain backwards compatibility. It’s because they keep adding more shit, and the shit they add isn’t exactly hyper optimized.
Well, it’s both of those. There is plenty of bloat due to a necessity to maintain backwards compatibility. I’m well aware of the extra shit they add, but that’s not what I’m asking about.
Apple’s MacOS transition is driven by the hardware change. The next MacOS will not support Intel machines, so I would imagine those aspects of compatibility will be removed going forward, such as Rosetta 2.
The question was related to an equivalent aspect in Windows: since Windows 11 requires certain hardware, why doesn’t Microsoft treat Windows in a similar vein?