Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps" 288
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."
If it won't work with what you need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Has the Mozilla Foundation or OO.org submitted an application to undergo the testing program? Probably not.
This list is just the programs that are allowed to put that official Microsoft logo on the box that says the program will work with Windows. It doesn't mean that programs whose developers haven't bothered to go through the testing program aren't going to work in Vista.
This is a non-story? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have heard statements like "If only Mac has this and that software, I would switch in a second" or "If only Linux has more games, I would leave Windows forever".
So now that Windows doesn't have support for this and that software, it has given users a chance to revisit those statements above and make a decision.
Wait for SP1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course ya just gotta feel sorry for the poor schmucks who buy a new namebrand PC between the release of Vista and SP1 since they don't get a choice. Which is just one more reason why only the uneducated masses buy a namebrand PC.
Vista **does** work fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Must be a slow news day...
Re:Who's surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
FireFox works perfectly in Vista, so does Acrobat Reader. Photoshop doesn't, and drops the system into compatibility mode. Is this really Microsoft's fault?
Re:Suprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
Adobe: Crashybloatware. Ever time Acrobat reader comes up on any of my computers, I always worry about if it'll crash and burn (it doesn't take the OS with it, but it usually brings down associated apps like firefox). I use Corel Photopaint myself instead of Photoshop, *MUCH* faster.
Norton: One of three applications I've used in the past 5 years that has crashed windows (ignoring a bad SATA controler, which crashed windows, but was hardly windows' fault). It's also the only set up applications that
Firefox: Ok, yeah, it's competition which is probably the main reason, but it's also worse than IE (since FF 1.5) in memory leaks. I still prefer it for security reasons though. 3 FireFox
Skype: never used it, but I can see the competition angle.
OOO: Yeah, definetly anticompetative here. If it were still the old Star Office 5, I would say it's crapware, but OOO is actually good.
Games: WTF, most games are rather poorly programmed, if you look at the bugs and crashes in them. Rarely have I seen a well programmed game.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish that were true. Sadly, Adobe has several products for which they have dropped the Mac version completely (like Framemaker, where prior to this decision is accounted for 60% of their market). In my experience a lot of Adobe products are held back because they take care to keep them as close on Windows and the Mac as possible, meaning they ignore most of the really cool features of OS X that MS has not yet copied on Windows.
With Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia, MS decided it was time to take action. They have already started leveraging their monopoly to cut into Adobe's markets and will be doing so with increasing regularity. Adobe now has to choose whether to try to "negotiate" with MS, which insures short term profits but will kill them in the long term unless something changes, or if they are going to play hardball and throw their weight behind OS X and Linux in order to gain a better bargaining position.
Who says it doesn't work??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a non-story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they don't have to initially - except that it would be in their interest if they didn't have a monopoly on desktop OS. But once the initial port is done, they do have a responsibility to customers who updated with an expectation of backward compatibility. Especially if the Adobe products in question are certified on XP or the previous OS is no longer available on most new PCs.
Not a slow news day (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you can expect to see lots more of it for many months to come on sites like Slashdot.
Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Vista is awsome! I absolutely love it!
But I can't run this app, or that app, and my favorite game won't run on it.
Vista rocks!"
How can you like an OS that doesn't run your applications? That's its sole purpose in life! If it supports every app you need, then go ahead and love it. But if it doesn't run something you find critical then it's useless to you.
Re:Not a slow news day (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this Microsoft's fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
No conspiracy, move along... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.
I don't think that's it - I think it's just a rubber-stamp list of whoever signed up, paid their fee, and jumped through the hoops. If they were excluding competitors, I really don't think Google Toolbar would have made the list.
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. Adobe apps generally ignore system services and do not use that mechanism to share functionality between Adobe apps, instead implementing their own, limited variant that clones the behavior on Windows. As a result, Adobe apps waste the resources needed to duplicate functionality implemented by Adobe apps and other apps as well. They ignore even the default Apple included services like the dictionary/thesaurus service.
Adobe ignores most of the core graphics APIs that make it trivial for me to do something like add a watermark to every page of a PDF in a small shareware app, but which is still very hard to do to an existing PDF with any of Adobe's tools. It also limits the OS's ability to automatically take more advantage of multiple processors for OpenGL operations that are CPU intensive.
Adobe apps tend to ignore the capable command line in OS X as much as possible, including stdout, limiting the use of Adobe apps in scripted workflows and automation, instead relying entirely upon input from the GUI, except where Adobe did not consider it at all and the system automatically lets you do things. I can pipe data to Photoshop, for example, but Adobe had nothing to do with that.
Adobe has had Linux and even Solaris versions of some of their applications in the past, but cancelled them to focus on Windows. They've cancelled even Mac versions of some of their software. I don't think this has anything to do with support costs.
There is one glaring problem with this statement. You're assuming Adobe's users are graphics people. Half the user base of Framemaker migrated from LaTeX. Dreamweaver is the favored Web development application of some pretty hard core nerds. Your generalizations are uninformed.
So you think this is argument against Adobe supporting OS X more? From where I'm sitting OS X is easier to use than windows and has more technically un-inclined graphics people. Adobe expanding support for the Mac and other platforms like Linux as well for certain apps, is a great way to put pressure on MS by facilitating the weakening of their core monopoly.
What does Microsoft really have? (Score:4, Insightful)
What does Microsoft have? They have market share (ie. a customer base). They don't have particularly innovative or high quality software products/services and their revenues are largely independent of their offerings. They have you (*). They just have to keep finding ways to repackage you (*) to keep generating income. If MS didn't make Vista, they'd keep selling XP. However, it is very hard to keep dishing up left overs and still keep a straight face. Vista is a statement more than a product.
Re:Vista **does** work fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Suprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who says it doesn't work??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your OS keeps crashing? You're running an unsupported application. Go away and don't come back until you've fixed that.
Still crashing? You must be running unsupported hardware. What's the exact make and model number of every single component in your PC? You don't know? Go away and come back when you do.
Hardware vendors are just as bad:
Your hard disk appears to have failed? Sorry, you're running an unsupported operating system. Go away.
Your power supply has exploded? Sorry, we only support people who don't actually ring up requiring support.
Your power supply has caught fire, destroying your house and all your belongings? [click]
Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a slow news day (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vista **does** work fine (Score:2, Insightful)
I suggest you go learn some basic economics. You don't even need to take a class, you can start by looking up "customer" and "shareholder" in a respectable encyclopedic dictionary so that you'll have somewhat more of a semblance of a clue what you're talking about.
You're statements sound cool in the context of the OSS religion, or whatever, but they don't actually make sense.
Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:3, Insightful)