After reading the blurb, I didn't feel like reading the article, however, it sounds as if the Reg watched the FX 2.0 compatibility vid on Channel 9 and made a lot of wrong conclusions.
I can't see what's wierd about FX 2.0 apps not running unless you have FX 2.0 or higher installed. Functionality such as Generics and Partial Types that was added in 2.0 are simply not available on earlier FX versions, thus 2.0 apps shouldn't be expected to run on earlier versions.
As stated by quux, FX 2.0 will be available for current Windows versions and will not require upgrading to "Longhorn" or Server R2. Those platforms will, however, include FX 2.0 by default.
Backwards and Forwards compatibility as used by MS is not the opposite of what they should be and is consistent with how the rest of the industry (game consoles is an example most people can relate to) uses the terms.
Backward Compatibility:
I have 2.0. I can go back and run older code on the newer runtime.
I have XBOX360. I can go back and play older XBOX games on my new platform.
Forward Compatibility:
I have 1.0. Using 1.0 runtime, I can go forward and run newer (1.1) code on the older runtime.
I have XBOX. If it were forward compatible, going forward, I could play XBOX 360 games on my XBOX.
XBOX, like .NET 1.x, is not forward compatible w/ their respective new platforms.
.NET 1.1 and 2.0 are backward compatible w/ older runtimes.
.NET 1.0 is forward compatible w/ 1.1 but neither 1.x runtime is forward compatible w/ 2.0.
Windows is backward compatible w/ DOS
DOS is not forward compatible w/ Windows
|