Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps"

PetManimal writes "Microsoft has just released a list of 800 applications it says are 'officially supported' on Windows Vista. What's special about this list, however, are the programs that are not included: 'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software, Symantec Corp.'s security products, as well as the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox Web browser, Skype Ltd.'s free voice-over-IP software and the OpenOffice.org alternative to Microsoft Office.' Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming, as discussed earlier on Slashdot."

So all those missing apps...

[EvilSS]

...were submitted for "Windows Vista" logo certification? If not, then, uh, what the hell is the point of this article? If you look at the title of the page linked to, it clearly says 'Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo'. From further down:

"The tables in the "More Information" section list the products that currently have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo. There are many applications that are compatible and work well with Windows Vista but that are not listed in this article. This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program."

So I guess we should blame adobe, firefox, etc. for not being on the ball and submitting their apps? Is that the point of this article? Or just more VistaFud(TM)

Compatibility Issues?

[norminator]

I use Firefox all the time on Vista and it works as well as anything. I would have been surprised to see it "Certified" by Microsoft, though. I have OpenOffice installed, but I barely use it on that machine. OO Writer doesn't have any problems opening, at least. I really haven't had any problems with iTunes, other than the issue where if I use the Windows utility to Stop/Remove the iPod instead of ejecting it in iTunes, the next time I plug it into that machine, Windows tells me its hard drive may have a problem. I haven't noticed any problems with any of my files on it, though.

I agree that the surprising part of TFA was the software that did make the list. The Google Desktop Search as you mentioned, as well as WordPerfect and some others. But then I guess they have to be able to show that some (a carefully selected portion?) of their competitors' apps can run, otherwise they don't get the privilege of saying that Vista can run all of this software you use that Mac/Linux can't. I don't think MS feels very threatened by WordPerfect, so it's OK to throw them on the list.

Re:So all those missing apps...

[jeevesbond]

Agreed, this is sensationalist, more anti-Vista FUD. I hate Vista as much as most here, but there's no need to lie. There are plenty of valid reasons why it's an awful operating system [auckland.ac.nz] that can be used; why invent new ones that don't exist?

This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program.

As a Linux user I'd be annoyed if I went to the OpenOffice or Firefox website and found one of those ghastly: 'Designed for Windows Vista' logos staring back at me.

Re:Who's surprised?

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

It's not Microsoft's responsibility to make other people's software run on their OS. Obviously it's their responsibility to a fair market to not deliberately hinder other developers' software in favour of their own, and of course it is in Microsoft's best interests for the most part to make Windows as backwards compatible as possible (there's no point having a decade of software compatability lock-in only to throw it away for nothing).

But of course a new OS will create compatability issues, and frankly many of the compatability issues with Vista are because of progressive things (eg. involving stopping use of the registry, forcing the proper use of user folders). It's the software developers' responsibility to make sure that those areas are covered, and frankly with the open way in which Vista was Beta'd no developers have an excuse for not being ready.

Re:Who's surprised?

[drinkypoo]

Illustrator is the only program I've run into which can lock OS X up solid.

You're not using InDesign enough, or using it hard enough. It can do it too.

I've also had Illustrator not totally lock up OSX, but lock it up enough to where all I can do is move the beach ball around the screen and swear.

That aside, there's only one company which produces crappier code than Adobe, and that's Microsoft. I look forward to the steaming pile of shit Microsoft will shovel into all those boxes marked "Expression" in the same way I look forward to someone running down a hallway, headed towards a banana peel.

I agree with your sentiment, but you're forgetting about Corel. Corel Draw is/was the biggest pile of crap EVAR in terms of reliability.

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[SatanicPuppy]

Heh. I'm trying to imagine graphics professionals that aren't using Mac's already, and I'm failing.

We have maybe 50 Photoshop licenses where I work, and about the same number of Quark licenses. Bunch of different versions of Acrobat. I think, out of those three pieces of software, we have maybe 4 Windows software licenses, and the photoshop install media has been sitting in my desk drawer for more than a year without anyone asking for it.

Re:Who's surprised?

[zxnos]

shhh, you are not allowed to insert logic and reason into an anti-ms thread. a pox on you and your family. :)

Grain of salt

[Cro Magnon]

I don't consider that a reliable list. Firefox works great on Vista. I don't know about any of the other products except Symantic, which doesn't really work on XP.

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[h2_plus_O]

So now that Windows doesn't have support for this and that software

Actually, it does. Don't confuse logo certification with anything but what it is: a process where a MS-certified testing organization (like these guys [wipro.com]) verifies that your app Conforms to specific guidelines [mrmpslc.com] that you really want your apps doing anyhow if you want them to run on Windows. This is what they check for [microsoft.com], so there are no surprises.

It's not like your app won't work if it's not certified (otherwise how would they test it?). Being logo-certified just means you get to put a sticker on your retail box so that shoppers who only know that 'it's gotta work for me and I have windows' have some way to know it's been verified to pass those tests on their OS.

Firefox works great, Skype has a little trouble.

[DimGeo]

Here's my experience so far:
Firefox works on the beta 2, on the RTM, and on the x64 versions of Vista.
Skype doesn't seem to know what's Unicode on Vista x86. Actually, Skype 3.something just displayed an empty contact list on me. Skype 2.something works great, thanks to oldversion.com, but doesn't handle cyrillic [wikipedia.org] characters right.

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[Kalriath]

Oh, and it also costs $20,000 or so to do. Something not all companies really want to do for dubious (if any) benefit.

Re:Who's surprised?

[Achromatic1978]

From not three minutes ago, http://www.unknowing.net/pscs2.jpg [unknowing.net] - unless I'm missing something, seems to be fully Aero-ised?

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[Columcille]

I don't know about Counterstrike, but those others are also on my frequent use list and I haven't had a problem with them under Vista.

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[Orion Blastar]

Actually Vista has a Classic Windows mode like OSX has a Carbon mode for Classic Macintosh, it does the whole WIN32 API. Any application that does not work just needs the API interface changed to work with Vista.

Just like when applications that would not work under OSX got patches released to make them work, so will Windows programs get that Vista patch to make them work under Vista.

I am using Vista and Firefox, Thunderbird, and Seamonkey all work, but Mozilla did not bother to test them to pass the Vista certification.

While there are a lot of commercial games that won't work under Vista due to draconian security protection preventing them, one can apply unprotect patches to bypass that draconian security protection from Game Copy World or whatever with the NOCD crack. Future commercial games will support DirectX 10, and only Vista uses DirectX 10, which means future games will shut out the Windows XP and lower markets because they cannot do DirectX 10. Civilization IV might have issues, for example, but Civilization V might not and only run under Vista.

Just like everyone moved to OSX and shut out the Classic Mac OS 9 and under crowd, so too will everyone move to Vista and shut out the XP and under crowd.

Yet I got a feeling that a lot of F/OSS projects will still support XP and under, despite the commercial software companies that have contracts with Microsoft to only make Vista versions.

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[pilkul]

Future commercial games will support DirectX 10, and only Vista uses DirectX 10, which means future games will shut out the Windows XP and lower markets because they cannot do DirectX 10. Civilization IV might have issues, for example, but Civilization V might not and only run under Vista.

At some point probably yes, but this is several years away. The vast majority of the game industry is still developing for DX9 exclusively, and even those who are planning to support DX10 will provide an alternative DX9 rendering path for the foreseeable future. It will be months before people even start taking advantage of DX9Ex (the enhanced version of DX9 made available by Vista).

Re:If it won't work with what you need...

[itsdapead]

Just like everyone moved to OSX and shut out the Classic Mac OS 9 and under crowd, so too will everyone move to Vista and shut out the XP and under crowd.

Not sure that this is comparing, er... apples to apples :->

• OS X didn't really get usable until 10.2 or thereabouts. Never mind - Vista SP1 is already in the pipeline!
• For a decent interval, new macs came configured to dual-boot OSX or OS9, and support for running OS9 in a "compatibility box" hung around until the switch to intel.
• OS9 was hopelessly out-of-date, with kludgey multitasking and laughable memory management. Shifting to a industrial-strength *nix-based system was a pretty compelling idea. The lack of major incentives to upgrade from Windows XP to Vista have been discussed here ad nauseum - and the jury is still out on how much the major one (security) has really improved (security won't really be fixed until third party applications stop assuming administrator rights - otherwise you could have run XP from an unprivileged account).
• Apple has a smaller, more flexible user base - MS are dependent on big corporates who have to regression test 50,000 PCs before changing the default screensaver. Hence Apple have been able to go "back to the drawing board" several times (Apple ][ to Mac; 68k to PPC; OS9 to OSX/Unix; PPC to Intel) and rapidly dump "legacy" features (e.g. floppy discs) whereas MS is a history of conservative,incremental changes all the way back to CP/M, and failed to get people to shift from 2.1/95/98 to the vastly superior NT/2000
• MS have to worry about a substantial and technically demanding gaming userbase. Apple... don't.