Working Around Vista Apps' Incompatibilities 349
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft says there are over 1,000 applications you can run on Windows Vista with few, if any, issues. However, Windows apps number in the tens of thousands. Add to that the facts that x64 Vista versions don't support legacy 16-bit code, and that the Windows Resource Protection in Vista breaks some apps, and you've got a big issue. InformationWeek lists a host of workarounds in How To Manage Windows Vista Application Compatibility. Among the tips discussed are Vista's compatibility mode, its Program Compatibility Assistant wizard, and a little-known form of file and registry virtualization that's built into the OS. What problems have you encountered with incompatible apps, and are any issues you've encountered deal-breakers that could further roil the already muddied adoption picture for Vista?"
Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn, beaten to it... :-)
Seriously, why would any organisation upgrade to Windows Vista if it wasn't pretty sure all of its key software would work? It's amazing how many people seem to think there's some sort of obligation on people to upgrade. In fact, if you look at recent history, the big corporations are usually the last people to move on major upgrades like XP->Vista, often taking several years to do it. This is why.
Here's an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been using Windows 2000 for years now and have found it to be the best and most stable Windows OS so far. 95 and 98 were a constant headache with the BSOD and XP is just 2000 with a ton of useless eye candy, not to mention the PITA of product activation everytime you want to change the hardware.
Vista has proven itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME. Nothing works with it, it is full of DRM crap that keeps you from doing anything and there is really no reason to "upgrade" to it anyway.
Sales are far below what MS thought they would be because no one really wants it anyway, witennesed by many government and corporate organizations even refusing to allow their systems to be switched over to it.
In a word, it's a disaster!
Vista = Linux ?? (Score:1, Insightful)
In general (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the MS fanb^H^H^H^Hapol^H^H^H^Hafficionados are saying to stay away from it, it must be bad.
Of course, one of the problems of using MS is that eventually, MS is going to force you to, either directly or indirectly. For the gamers, eventually new games wont run on anything but Vista, and for business folk, once a few businesses are conned into upgrading to it (and of course new versions of Word/etc, which will of course not open in earlier versions, that any business that interacts with them (that is stupid enough to consider MS-Word a good format to exchange data in) will have to ugprade too, and so on. And they call GPL software viral.
And of course, with Vista's build in 'calling home', when and if MS wants you to move to something else, they will just slowly tell every Vista that 'calls home' thats its obsolete, and it will slowly begin to lose functionaility, and eventually you'll be forced to upgrade again.
Just like the drug pusher, MS cannot make money unless you keep buying more. To borrow a phrase from another war: 'Just say No' to MS. Now is the time to get off their drugs.
This is one aspect in which I agree with Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
If they feel they need to expend the resources to get compatibility in order, here's what I think Microsoft should do:
PATCH THE APPS. Distribute or make downloadable the patches and upgrades necessary to make it happen. Hell, it could be a quality way for Microsoft to improve their relationship with vendors of all types. They'll spend the money anyway.
Not Really as Bad as the Naysayers Think (Score:2, Insightful)
All the people that keep saying "wait 6 months for it to be fixed" forget something: 5 years after the release of XP, they were still fixing it. If you're not going to adopt until the OS is "fixed", then you've got a long wait ahead.
Home users / DirectX 10 (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony is that I'm not even sure why home users would move.
I've been following Vista developments for years, since back when there were going to be three big pillars underlying it. As far as I can see, from a technical perspective, the only remaining major functional improvement over XP is that Vista supports DirectX 10, and Microsoft are pretty much guaranteed to restrict that artificially to Vista-only.
Of course, going by the history, that won't even start to affect any games except Microsoft's own for at least a couple of years, since most games software isn't using everything DX9 offers yet. Similarly, DX10-supporting hardware won't be even close to mainstream for at least a year or two. Given that PC games now represent only a quarter or so of the market (the consoles are well and truly in charge today) and the majority of home users still aren't going to have Vista for a while, games companies may be hesitant to tread those waters even as they reach the point where the extra goodies in DX10 may be genuinely useful.
Apart from that, what possible reason is there for a home user to upgrade? There's been a lot of negative press for Vista, not just about DRM but also all the hardware and software compatibility problems. The UI is different, which for many users means "bad" by default, even if with time they might come to prefer it. If home users were really serious about security, the world wouldn't be full of botnets. And the list goes on...
I can understand businesses with professional IT people placing some value on improved security or networking features, so if and when the compatibility is sorted out and the trust issues with phoning home and being activated/disabled/whatever remotely are irrevocably fixed, businesses might move. But home users? Not for years, except for the people who just get it with new PCs. (And even the rate of buying those isn't what it used to be.)
WIndows x64 (Score:4, Insightful)
1: Device Drivers
2: Kernel hooks (e.g. Anti-virus software)
Any software that doesn't use either of these, doesn't work on Windows x64 edition, and is less than 5 years old, was obviously not very well written.
Would you trust a program to be secure and bug-free if it doesn't even adhere to the OS's guidelines?
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) How did it prove itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME? No one knew how bad ME was until a year after it when Microsoft was already almost done with XP. ME was an intermediate OS, which was why it sucked. Vista is far more stable than XP or even 2000 on a machine meeting its recommended specs with hardware on the HCL. 3 machines in my house run Vista without a problem, and two of them have the dreaded "Vista Capable" logo.
2) DRM crap? I bet you don't even have a bluray or HDDVD drive in the first place. Hell, I bet you torrent all of your movies, so you shouldn't be complaining. Vista doesn't DRM everything. You can still watch your torrented movies (it's the only way to get decent HD rips anyhow)
3) no real reason to upgrade. Right, well I found BitLocker to be a perfect reason. To each his own; I can see where you're coming from but there are people that disagree with you.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem is for software developers, even hobbyest software developers. Without Vista, it's difficult to make sure an application works properly on Vista...so we're eventually forced to upgrade to Vista because users will have Vista, and as the number of Vista users grows, that will become more and more of a problem...
Re: Your quite right, buy a Mac instead! (Score:2, Insightful)
Raising the standards of Windows software (a bit) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can do everything that I did in Vista like I did with XP before; I can run Nero to convert all my movies or I can use the 'DVD authoring' tool provided by MS to create all my pirated movies to which it automatically adds chapters for me, just copied over my original MP3 collection from XP that I have had for the last 8 years and continue to game and play/edit media like I have been doing forever now. Still can communicate with all my friends like before, share my folders in Windows with other users, Remote Desktop still connects, Office 2007 work and I can still use my blueprint programs for construction like I did before. Boy this Windows thing from MS sure has been such a terrible experience the last 15+ years and obviously people are leaving in droves.
OK we get it that Vista sales are down and that somehow by your definition this is going to be the end of Windows and mass switch overs to Linux/OSX; could have swore I have seen this type of argument modded up the last 6 years intensively if not long before that. I wish I had a time machine or could take some money bets on line that we will be exactly where we are with Vista as we are with Windows yet more stable with better drivers; yet the same arguments will be put up again. Hell we don't even need a time machine and all you gotta do is read all the articles from 5 years ago to see some of the nonsense that was modded up and where the computer industry is now. Come on get out of that little bubble you live in and get out in the real world to get your priorities straight.
Vista is very stable from all the gaming, multimedia editing, sharing, networking and just communicating like before but with a couple of additional things that are useful.
The 'March 2007 Windows Vista Application Compatibility Update' provided many compatibility updates for a huge list of applications including games also; there are many more of these to follow and the April compatibility should be released soon.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246 [microsoft.com]
Plus I get updates smoothly from Windows Update for my graphics card and just recently got the second update for my old network card which they still support; oh and that DRM WGA does not get in my way at all unlike when I used to pirate XP I would constantly run across it but now I have a legal copy I can access all the spots on the MS site easily with no inconvenience.
The problem with Vista is Windows and Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to really worry about trusting business, especially MY business, on Linux. "Who" would support me? What about my data? What if it breaks, etc.
After spending more than a decade using Linux as my OS of choice, my worries about Linux are almost gone, but I have realized that there are bigger worries that people don't even realize they have to deal with with Windows.
Microsoft is a single company, and if not an out right monopoly, certainly a virtual one. They are in the position to make autocratic decisions regardless of customer demands. DRM? Discontinuing Windows XP? If my company had a product that people wanted, I wouldn't be able to, responsibly, stop shipping it.
The average office is held hostage to Microsoft's whims. Vista is a perfect example. It breaks existing applications, it needs far more resources to run. It has a much more draconian set of licensing restrictions and obligations. Yet, Microsoft can STILL stop Windows XP regardless of the customer need.
Linux is better. If the company you have decides to change and break your applications, you don't have to upgrade. You can, more or less, add the "cool" new features of the new release without breaking your system.
The average home user goes it alone, they either do it themselves, have a nerd-buddy, or use something like geek squad. Medium to large size offices typically have IT management services, and the Linux model is typically better for them, if it were not for vendor.
If ODF takes off enough to the point where "Microsoft Office" is optional, you'll see a lot of companies switching users to Linux just for the TCO. (M$ TCO FUD not withstanding)
Re:Home users / DirectX 10 (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh sure, Windows users will eventually all be using Vista (or whatever it mutates into
But like you said, Vista is about all you can buy nowadays. I guess we should just hunker down and get ready for the storm. It's on the horizon already.
Re:What? (Score:1, Insightful)
I, and many others, are not getting the top end version of Vista just to encrypt some contents on a hard drive.
Re:Home users / DirectX 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
You go ahead and hunker for me.
I'm sticking with XP until Ubuntu Studio works for me, or Microsoft relents and makes an OS I can use. Or I can run OSX on the machine I build.
I've decided my days of hunkering down for Microsoft, Apple, telcos or the RIAA are over. If more consumers got wise, it might be their turn to hunker down and serve our needs instead of the other way around.
Microsoft won't just drop XP (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, no they won't. Several large parts of the US Federal Government have already implemented blanket bans on the use of Vista. It is highly likely that several very large businesses will do similarly, along with other government departments in the US and elsewhere, for exactly the same reasons. There is no way Microsoft is going to turn down thousands and thousands of future XP sales to customers of that scale just because its new toy isn't selling well.
If you don't believe me, take a look at Microsoft's rhetoric around this time after XP was released, and then take a look at how many major customers were still able to get Win2K years later, and indeed how many still run it. They might say they're going to stop, but they're firing blanks and both they and their major customers know it.
Re:This is one aspect in which I agree with Micros (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vista = Linux ?? (Score:4, Insightful)
My list of non functioning stuff on vista after two months:
Gametap (they admit theres no x64 version of the software and refuse to let the prog install on x64)
Audigy SE drivers need more work (sound is basic promised driver is Q2)
Creative Vista IM Webcam (ironic theres no x64 VISTA driver in the works for it)
Visual Studio 2003.net (a pain since I became attatched to this but the uni gives away 2005 as well so....)
Every other XP application I have thrown at it (excluding those games) has worked perfectly on it from Visual Studio 2005 (since patched) to Proteus ISIS software.
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no obligation to upgrade to the latest version of Windows in much the same way that there's no obligation to pay any money to the nice gentleman visiting who would very much like your store to not accidentally burn down next weekend.
You can hold out from upgrading, and in return you can be guaranteed the following services:
* your documents will slowly stop being able to be read by other people since you don't have a current MS Office
* the software you use will slowly not be supported by the manufacturer since you don't have a current OS
* your OS will stop getting security patches and thus will become infested by worms and trojans, possibly making you criminally liable
* your hardware, when it fails and needs replacing (and the warranty probably only lasts for three years) quite possibly won't work on your current OS - and if it does, OEM licensing may make it illegal for you to continue to run your current OS
Yep, absolutely zero obligation.
Nice merchandise you have here, by the way. Shame if bit-rot were to set in, ain't it?
Re:Vista & Older Windows Apps == DLL Hell of 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Why vista (Score:5, Insightful)
One acronym, three letters.
U.A.C.
Corps (already serious about their desktop security, using access-regulated policies and usually domains) gain almost nothing from the new User Access Control model in Vista. It's all for the home user who doesn't have a sysadmin to disallow him to touch anything in C:\WINDOWS and C:\PROGRAM FILES. The underlying ability to have user access policies on the computer has been there since NT4, effectively since forever.
It's the bolting it into a homeuser-centric UI and turning it into what is, for all intents and purposes, "sudo", integrated into every nook and cranny that requires straying into privileged space that's new.
For an
For all of you who are overfed with FUD, or haven't bothered looking at anything since you've looked an the unfinished (RC) product:
NO, YOU DO NOT NEED TO HANDLE ANNOYING POPUPS WHEN BROWSING ALL THE TIME. I keep getting that a lot, and it just doesn't happen anywhere except in people's anti-MS imaginations.
You need to handle annoying popups when you go to places you shouldn't be. Routine tasks VERY RARELY involve doing that (and if you're one of the elite few who do need open access to the system, just disable UAC altogether, it's got a big ON/OFF switch).
We've all been beating M$ with a stick for 20 years about the inherent lack of security of all OS's up to XP where the user effectively works as root. IMHO, we were RIGHT. Well, they finally fixed it. I am NOT saying windows and/or UAC is unhackable or unexploitable or mature or some such. IT IS NONE OF THESE.
However, they finally introduced a seatbelt, and when lining it up against pre-vista seatbeltless windows where the user belongs to Administrators - just about 99.99999% of the world's home installbase - (in an otherwise seatbelt-equipped world - macos, linux, etc), that's a fundamentally major change WHICH IS A GOOD REASON TO NOT RESIST CHANGING OVER (if, say, you get a new computer, or are reinstalling an old one anyway and don't mind forking out some coin - say, 100$, for some RAM if you're sub-1GB).
UAC is a major homeuser-targeted change that I think non-fanboy professionals should embrace. It'll annoy people at first (seatbelts annoyed people at first too), until they get into the habit of using the system the way it's meant (minimal straying outside userspace), at which point annoyance factor becomes minimal and people accept the extra hassle, because it's a hell of a lot better than what they had before.
In other news, some UI improvements are more than welcome, and as a poweruser, I put value on intuitive UI that makes my work more efficient. Enter Katapult-on-steroids - a SEARCH integrated into the start menu that searches the start menu and the program files. Sidebar is also a welcome UI improvement, as is a revised resource-monitor that breaks down diskIO etc. by process.
In yet other news, compatibility suffers. My vista lappie can't connect to the office Wifi network, something between its 802.11x and the radius goes bust. Same config exactly on XP works like charm.
Still, I run a LOT of stuff on it, including a cygwin environment, retro DOS games, productivity software etc, and this would be the only compatibility issue I've encountered. Had I not, I'd be sitting here saying compatibility at all.
Bottom line: Security-wise, big step up. Maturity-wise, probbably still crap, bu
Yet - Vista automatically fixes most everyting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead everyone here replying is going from the out of context pull quote or not even reading the article.
Almost everything mentioned in the article talks about what is different in Vista, and then goes on to explain how Vista tries to work around 99% of these incompatibilities - AUTOMATICALLY.
Sure Vista changed a lot in comparison to XP, so the fact that people think Vista isn't different than XP or applications run as well as they is quite remarkable.
Just a short list of major rewritten portions: Video subsystem, Printing subsystem, inter process communications, new intelligent audio stack, network stack, xaml based language from application to screen to printer, etc etc..
In our labs we have very few applications that break under Vista or require Admin Rights to run at all. And this is a number like 10 out of a few thousand we have tested.
Out of the thousands of applications we run and have tested for our environments, half of the ones that did have compatibility problems MS itself released Vista updates to allow the 3rd party applications to run properly, even though they were coded improperly, had bugs, or have no concept of security.
I dare any OS to support as many applications as Vista and not break a few bad applications along the way from the XP upgrade. When facing this challenge, remember Vista has a full BSD subsystem and can run 99% of all the *nix apps in addition to the DOS and Windows base.
XP allowed applications to do stuff MS should never have allowed that created performance and security risks, and Vista finally draws the line in the sand for developers so they have to learn about security and writing applications properly.
For every broken application, I give MS a kudos for finally stopping crap from doing stuff it shouldn't.
PS - Anyone running Windows, run a free anti-virus application, Norton and McAfee cause more performance problems and dig into the OS in areas they should never touch. If your XP or Vista installation on a computer made in the last 5 years takes more than 30secs to boot, you have hardware problems or crap like Norton or McAfee installed.