That's backwards, though. MS wants to enable new systems to run old software, and they do this very well. The case in hand is running old software against new content, which they don't care about. The relevant comparison would be running IE10 against a cached copy of some website from 1999. I suspect that test would work rather well.

Well ... I do agree that both the standards and best-practices for creating web content have changed, but I'm pretty sure the most recent version of Excel will open a document I created in the '90s. You could argue they have complete control of both the software and the document format in that instance, but the IE browsers never bothered to be standards compliant anyway ("older IE browsers" - I've been pleasantly surprised by IE9 and IE10).

> I'm pretty sure the most recent version of Excel will open a document I created in the '90s.

Backwards compatibility is not the same as forwards compatibility, you seem to be confusing them.

You expect an application like Excel to open something made before by an earlier version. MS knows how to handle that format. However, you do not expect Excel 95 to open a xlsx file, it was a format that did not exist when Excel 95 was created.

I think that you are confusing backwards/forwards compatibility with the point the OP seemed to be making: Microsoft never bothered to follow the web standards.

Agreed, but... the standards themselves have changed since 1999.

Yeah, it seems Microsoft always has had good excuses. I wonder if other browsers from that period would have as poor results as IE5 does. I seriously doubt it.

Well the main competitor was Netscape 4, which was even worse.

What exactly was worse in Netscape? Because I just loved using it.

It's extremely bad and buggy CSS support, which was even worse than even IE4, let along IE5.

But the point is that a '90s copy of Excel running would not remotely be able to consume and display a modern .XLSX data file. Going back to the original point, this is why it's impressive that Wikipedia are able to display their site to such an old browser, and ironic that MS doesn't.

Unfortunately Microsoft has disabled or removed quite some import filters. e.g. you can't open a PowerPoint 4 file anywhere anymore. They also disabled Works and Word Perfect filters. Probably a victim of the secure coding guidelines: Might have bugs ==> remove feature

It is because of security issues with old code that probably mostly dates back to Office 97 or older. How often do you receive Word 6.0 documents via email nowadays?

How one receieves such documents is irrelevant. Some years ago a relative passed away, leaving hundreds of such documents on her antique computer. Luckily there was free software available that would still allow us to take part of her legacy. But of course, we could just as well have burnt her computer to ashes, as something so ancient must obviously be a security issue.

These files came from a source that can be trusted and are much different from random email attachments. Look up "spear phishing" for example. Most of the converters that still exist can be reenabled in the registry in case you still need to open these files. Office 2010 even provides UI for these options.

Window's console app has nothing to do with the ability to run DOS applications and the bit that actually does, the DOS virtual machine, doesn't exist on 64-bit versions of windows.

No. MS-DOS programs won't run on Windows. CMD isn't DOS.

You need something like FreeDOS or DOSbox to run the old DOS programs these days.

"Command prompt", i.e. terminal, is what makes you toy a computer. If you don't have one, it's still a toy.

MS did a lot to turn their lame "DOS command prompt" into a command line terminal; not enough, but a lot.

So no, "command prompt" has nothing to do with DOS. You can run DOS programs from the GUI as well.

Wow, you must be some sort of L33T H4X0r or something. You're the real deal. Everyone else is just playing with toys.

Just because the computer in my microwave doesn't have a GUI or a CLI doesn't mean it isn't a computer.

The first computers dealt with input via switches and levers. I don't think anyone would call the Colossus[0] a toy, and it had nothing resembling the command prompt that we know today.

0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

Your computer in microwave is not a computer. You can't run custom programs on it, it's not turing complete for you in this sense.

To run custom programs on it, you'll need to add a terminal to it or succumb to the sin of batch processing.

Colossus wasn't actually turing complete. It wasn't a computer except in historic sense.

You can use a GUI-based programming system. An example might be Devpac (68000 assembly language editor/assembler/debugger) on the Atari ST.

(You could get command shells for the ST, because it was a programmable computer, so of course you could make it do pretty much whatever you wanted if you were willing to put the effort in. But the system didn't ship with a command line interface and (as I recall...) most of the programming environments - at least the ones popular in Europe - didn't include one either.)

GUI-based system still needs command shell or it will lose a lot of flexibility arising from being able to evaluate small bits of code and therefore code incrementally.

"Immediate mode" counts.

Command shell, GUI, it's all software. If you have an x86 machine without an operating system on it, is it a computer?

Is an iOS device not a computer because it doesn't have a CLI?

What about a hypothetical computer that uses your brain as input - would that have a CLI? CLI/GUI/etc is irrelevant to the definition of computer.

Unless you're just being a pedantic troll, in which case kudos :)

"If you have an x86 machine without an operating system on it, is it a computer" No, it's a pile of iron and silicon.

"Is an iOS device not a computer because it doesn't have a CLI?" Not after you buy it, you have to turn it into a computer.

"What about a hypothetical computer that uses your brain as input - would that have a CLI?" It sure will, how else will you use it?

It's not pedantism. Pedantism is about meaning of words. My rant is about meaning of concepts. If you hit nails with your microscope, it's not a microscope for you but rather a lame hammer.

> MS did a lot to turn their lame "DOS command prompt" into a command line terminal; not enough, but a lot.

Then they made PowerShell, which removes any complaints one might have!

My main complaint with PowerShell is that you can't pipe one command to another.

What do you mean? You can do stuff like this:

ps | where { $_.name -like "*host" } | foreach { $_.id | out-host }

Well, not any. For example, still no built-in decent package manager able to download and install software along with dependencies.

I didn't know bash or zsh had a built-in package manager!

I didn't know "command line terminal" equals "bash or zsh"!

Of course I'm talking ecosystem here.

You may be moving your goal posts here a bit.

I believe he/she was being sarcastic there :)