The ODBC Driver interface for configuration is tied to the old dialog.
The interface for the drivers was designed around GetOpenFileName() as it was at the time.
One of the features of GetOpenFileName/GetSaveFileName is that the structure passed in can include two special options- a function pointer to a hook routine, as well as a custom dialog template which windows will insert.
The functions were improved in Windows 95 with the "Explorer style". Even old programs get this style at the very least, because windows will imply the flag.
unless a template or hook routine is specified. See if a hook routine or template is specified and the OFN_EXPLORER flag is not, then the hook routine or template was designed for the old-style dialog. Windows uses the old-style dialog in this instance so that the program can run and doesn't crash.
The ODBC Driver configuration uses a dialog template to add the "read Only" and "Exclusive" checkboxes. That is why it shows the old style dialog.
People might say, "They should update it"
Update what?
If GetOpenFileName()'s ability to fallback to the old-style dialog is removed, than you won't see this dialog. Instead, it will crash. Cool. great experience.
the driver interface? OK great. so now there is a new version of the ODBC Driver interface. Now all the ODBC Drivers need to be updated. Some of the drivers were written by companies that are either out of business or rather different. I have this sneaking suspicion that Paradox software isn't going to be writing a new ODBC Driver for the MS-DOS Database.
Just drop everything? OK Cool.... so now companies get forcibly upgraded to Windows 11 and literally cannot do business because they rely on them in some manner. "They should upgrade". I won't get into that except to say it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but companies in that position are far more likely to find ways to not upgrade the software that caused the problem so, you know, they can keep doing business. And not upgrading the OS is certainly cheaper than countless thousands of man-hours in upgrading their Business software.
And a big thing people don't understand about backwards compatibility is it's not just about old programs working. It's about new ones working to.
If Microsoft removed all "backwards compatibility", than practically nothing would actually work. Software would be constantly crashing, sending error reports, etc. Now, call me crazy, but somehow that doesn't seem like it's a great experience. And if upgrading to Windows X+1 suddenly caused programs to crash left & right, nobody is going to blame the programs.
Thanks for the read. Actually, I have no problem with Win95 (and previous) era UI components, it's the layers of inconsistencies on top of that bothers me. The Windows 95 is still the best Windows UI of all times.
a very fair, honest review. yes, software ages with time, and with time piles of new layers are added and others cannot be removed for very obvious reasons.
people who fail to understand this have basically no clue about complex systems evolution over tens of years, or have only produced their own cloud-managed service.
so, yeah, Microsoft is faring very well. OSes after windows 7 are extremely stable considering the diversity of components and packages that run on top of it.
apple killing all backward compatibility is not necessarily a good thing. we are talking right to repair? then what what right does an OS vendor to kill backwards-compatible components?
The backwards compatability on Windows is truly great, particularly compared to Linux and macOS (where messages fired off when buttons are clicked silently disappear nowhere, and the button does nothing)....
There is no backward compatibility from Win 7 onwards. A lot of games stopped functioning in Win 7( you need to rename system dlls or change registry entries for them to work). And in win 10 they just don't work.
On one side of the house you have folks saying Windows 3.1 dialogs are still able to be referenced, on the other you have folks saying there is no backwards compatibility from Windows 7 onwards. Clearly both can't be true yet Windows gets the short end of the stick after each reference anyways :).
"Really old games" probably don't have the same backward compatibility weight as "really really really old business software". As a good example a friend of mine with a local business just had me migrate his 16 bit ordering system from the 90s... to Windows 10... and I'll be damned it worked.
The ODBC Driver interface for configuration is tied to the old dialog.
The interface for the drivers was designed around GetOpenFileName() as it was at the time.
One of the features of GetOpenFileName/GetSaveFileName is that the structure passed in can include two special options- a function pointer to a hook routine, as well as a custom dialog template which windows will insert.
The functions were improved in Windows 95 with the "Explorer style". Even old programs get this style at the very least, because windows will imply the flag.
unless a template or hook routine is specified. See if a hook routine or template is specified and the OFN_EXPLORER flag is not, then the hook routine or template was designed for the old-style dialog. Windows uses the old-style dialog in this instance so that the program can run and doesn't crash.
The ODBC Driver configuration uses a dialog template to add the "read Only" and "Exclusive" checkboxes. That is why it shows the old style dialog.
People might say, "They should update it"
Update what?
If GetOpenFileName()'s ability to fallback to the old-style dialog is removed, than you won't see this dialog. Instead, it will crash. Cool. great experience.
the driver interface? OK great. so now there is a new version of the ODBC Driver interface. Now all the ODBC Drivers need to be updated. Some of the drivers were written by companies that are either out of business or rather different. I have this sneaking suspicion that Paradox software isn't going to be writing a new ODBC Driver for the MS-DOS Database.
Just drop everything? OK Cool.... so now companies get forcibly upgraded to Windows 11 and literally cannot do business because they rely on them in some manner. "They should upgrade". I won't get into that except to say it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but companies in that position are far more likely to find ways to not upgrade the software that caused the problem so, you know, they can keep doing business. And not upgrading the OS is certainly cheaper than countless thousands of man-hours in upgrading their Business software.
And a big thing people don't understand about backwards compatibility is it's not just about old programs working. It's about new ones working to.
If Microsoft removed all "backwards compatibility", than practically nothing would actually work. Software would be constantly crashing, sending error reports, etc. Now, call me crazy, but somehow that doesn't seem like it's a great experience. And if upgrading to Windows X+1 suddenly caused programs to crash left & right, nobody is going to blame the programs.