Depends. A lot of hardware vendors use the release of a new OS version to enforce planned obsolescence to get users to update hardware. If a component is, say, ten years old then no it doesn’t make business sense to maintain support for it. In other cases, is a bald-faced attempt to export money out of unsuspecting users.
In the case of hardware drivers and to a greater extent software, backward compatability is broken to close an attack vector. It happens with every OS, but it seems that some get a pass (OS9 to OSX, or Linux 2.x to 3.x), while others don’t.
Those of you who prefer Linux didn’t seem to care about backward compatibility when Windows wasn’t secure. But now that it is, for some reason it’s a priority. Curious, but not at all surprising.
Eh? What is this Linux 3.x thing? The most current Linux kernel is 2.6.
But besides that, I can easily boot Linux kernel 0.99 on just about any commodity hardware. Support can be had and new drivers can be written although you may have to pony up and hire someone to do it. Try that with Windows 3.11.
Those of you who prefer Linux didn’t seem to care about backward compatibility when Windows wasn’t secure.
Those of us who prefer Linux haven't had to care about backward compatibility. My code from 1999 works just as well today on a 2.6 kernel and new hardware as it did then. Code written for Linux on a Sun Sparcstation 5 will compile on an AMD64. Backward compatibility is always possible with Linux. It may require some work, but it's possible. Contrast that with the proprietary world where backward compatibility is a joke and often induced simply to sell new software.
Curious, but not at all surprising.
What? That Linux detractors make stuff up to try and prove a point?
Well, I agree.