>>(c), which is what they attempted, would be the best option
They thought so too, and they couldn't produce something that appealed to users.
Cross-platform compatibility is really something that benefits the manufacturer more than the user and it's rarely successful.

Can you imagine what the Corvette would look like if it was compatible with the Chevrolet Impala?

IBM had the sense to nurture 3 disparate and independent platforms - the mainframe, the AS/400 and the PC and each was hugely successful.

Could they have saved a few bucks by sharing software and parts across the platforms?
Maybe- but when you're trying to make the best product you can, that's really not a factor to consider.







>>Speaking of programming messes.. it would be hard to top this one!
>>
>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/100713593
>
>I was just wondering, even with the benefit of hindsight, what MS should have done after W7 ?
>
>(a) Ignored the huge surge to tablet/ touch devices and stuck to desktop/laptop based OS.
>(b) Written a separate OS for the phone/tablet market.
>(c) Develop an OS capable of a similar look and feel across all platforms.
>(d) ?
>
>Seems to me that (c), which is what they attempted, would be the best option.
>FWIW nearly all W8 complaints I have seen/heard come from existing MS OS desktop users. Most people I know who have bought a W8 phone or tablet seem to like or even prefer the interface if they have previously had Android devices.....
>
>My guess is that MS will just make it easier to work with W8 in the classic mode.....