Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Microsoft Software

Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps" 288

Posted by Zonk from the big-holes dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps" More

Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps"

Comments Filter:

  • If it won't work with what you need... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pudding7 ( 584715 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:31PM (#18113168)
    ...then don't use it.

    • Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by biocute ( 936687 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:34PM (#18113232)
      Exactly.

      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.

      • Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:5, Informative)

        by h2_plus_O ( 976551 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:57PM (#18114592)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Kalriath ( 849904 )
          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:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:4, Funny)

            by Kalriath ( 849904 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @05:50PM (#18115440)
            I'm going to have to correct myself here. I have once seen it cost this much, however it must have been reduced recently as it now only costs $1,000. And for the "first 1,000 to apply, Microsoft will pay the testing fees" so you get free certification (did that sound like an infomercial?)

            Still, the time requirements are quite high, and even $1000 is a quite high cost for what is an infinitesmal (if even that) perceived benefit.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by nacturation ( 646836 )

              Still, the time requirements are quite high, and even $1000 is a quite high cost for what is an infinitesmal (if even that) perceived benefit.
              Sure it's high... for shareware perhaps. But if you're selling an antivirus package to Joe Consumer and he gets to choose between your competitor's which is fully certified to run on Windows and your which isn't, guess which he'll choose? I think that's worth far more than $1000.
               
      • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by pilkul ( 667659 )

          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

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by itsdapead ( 734413 )

          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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      Yup. I guess all those graphics professionals who need to upgrade will have to either find a machine that still comes with XP or get a Mac. All those people who need OpenOffice or Mozilla will have to stick with XP or move to *NIX.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zxnos ( 813588 )

        graphics professionals who need to upgrade will have to either find a machine that still comes with XP or get a Mac.

        i have yet to meet a graphics professional (layouts, artwork, modeling, etc.) who doesnt use a mac. in my non-uber techie opinion, 800 apps is a lot to officially support. lastly, i have used firefox on a mac and am fairly certain that open office and thunderbird are on mac too.

        hopefully my humordar isnt broken as i am a bit sleep deprived... :)

      • Re:If it won't work with what you need... (Score:4, Informative)

        by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <Satanicpuppy@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:59PM (#18113684) Journal
        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: (Score:2)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        will have to either find a machine that still comes with XP

        I know one company that still recommends buying laptops from Dell who currently only ship with Vista preinstalled, even though the software they make doesn't yet run on Vista. They recommend users buy a retail copy of XP and install it over Vista. (They also make a version of the software for Linux, yet do not suggest installing Linux over Vista.)

        or get a Mac.

        They also won't support running their software on XP installed on an Intel Mac.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by H8X55 ( 650339 )
        Compatibility != Certified

    • Vista **does** work fine (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:36PM (#18113282)
      Wel from MS's perspective anyway. The main purpose of Vista is to generate huge piles of income and revitalising interest to keep MS "fresh" in the eyes of the investors.

      • Re:Vista **does** work fine (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:11PM (#18113878) Homepage
        Which brings one to the conclusion that you(*), the purchaser of Microsoft products are not the customer. The shareholder is the customer.

        You are the product.

        (*) - That's "you" in a general sense. I in no way mean to accuse you personally of actually purchasing said software.

        • What does Microsoft really have? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:33PM (#18114192)
          Parent is utterly correct. The people that buy MS products are not the customers, they are Microsoft assets.

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by zippthorne ( 748122 )
          How does Microsoft profit from its stock price?

    • Who says it doesn't work??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moronikos ( 595352 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:57PM (#18113660) Journal
      Hell, they all probably work. Firefox sure does. They just haven't been certified. The certification process takes a while and you have to pay for it. Microsoft sets the requirements and some 3rd party company administers it. After the 3rd party company has certified your product, then you can put the Vista (or XP) logo on your product. You also get listed on Microsoft's web site as having a certified product. Not being on the list means you either 1) haven't bothered to be certified, or 2) you failed certification. It doesn't mean the software doesn't run on that platform.

      • Re:Who says it doesn't work??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @05:13PM (#18114846)
        Exactly. "Unsupported" is a magic word used by tech support departments so they can wash their hands of the problem.

        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]
    • And that's what happened. I did a backup of my PC at work, did the upgrade, and it broke Business Vision, our accounting software.

      The funny part is, a quick jump to the business vision website didn't even mention anything about Vista.

      Anyway, a (not so quick) restore, and things are back where they were before.

      It also broke too much of my hardware, including the MS finger print reader and my printer, so, unfortunately, no go for me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by truthsearch ( 249536 )
      I'm still shocked when I see forum and blog posts that sound like this:

      "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.
    • Many stores like Fry's and Best Buy along with "custom" order computers like Dell and Gateway have all but removed windows XP from their selection. It's been a common point in the news lately that almost everybody out there selling computers has practically ousted XP in favor of Vista. The fact is, the customers don't really have an option to buy a computer with XP and very few are going to jump at the idea of spending an extra $100 to get the old operating system.

      Take note, I'm not talking about the a

  • Suprised? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by livewire98801 ( 916940 )
    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 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
      • I don't think that Microsoft is the driver of the certification. They will run a set of tests on the software for a company if that company allows them and possibly pays them. I think its just as likely that Adobe ect hasn't spent the time to go through certification yet as it is that Microsoft has some secret list of people they are not going to certify in order to prevent competition.

        Looking at how Adobe dealt with the move to intel processors for Mac computers I think that its highly likely that the next

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Daltorak ( 122403 )
        The Mozilla team has identified a couple dozen issues with Vista + Firefox (and Thunderbird). Some of them are fixed already (like making Firefox DPI aware), and some have yet to be (e.g. multiple UAC prompts when installing updates). Some are also "enhancements", like setting the default downloads folder to the new "Downloads" folder in the user's profile, instead of the desktop.

        Porobab the biggest one is this: they're considering implementing the same "Protected Mode" sandbox that IE7 uses to run the br

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jimstapleton ( 999106 )
      That explains Firefox...

      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 ap

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Vraylle ( 610820 )
        I completely agree about Adobe reader. A post here a few days ago suggested Foxit Reader [foxitsoftware.com]. I've been pretty happy with it, and it seems very stable.
    • Conversely, I would not be surprised if competitors really do not want to be on "the list."

      Apparently, this list requires some sort of Microsoft certification. You probably have to pay Microsoft or buy Microsoft products. I can see why competitors would want to avoid that. If my software company already had a well known brand and a decent reputation for reliability, I might want find it more advantageous to be on the conspicuously missing list.

      I would only want to be on "The List" if there was an imme

    • No conspiracy, move along... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:29PM (#18114128)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      Certifying Firefox would be pointless anyway, a certificate would be good only for a specific build and one patch would mess that up again.

  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:32PM (#18113202)
    From TFA:

    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.


    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.

    • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Undertaker43017 ( 586306 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:39PM (#18113318)
      Exactly! This is simply a "branding" program by MS, pay them money, run their tests, pass their tests, and you can put their logo on your product.

      Must be a slow news day...
      • Just an excuse to hate on Vista which is something pretty popular here. It seems there are lots of people who are just plain scared that Vista will be a success. They are worried it will end up being a good OS and lots of people will use it. So they end up grasping at any straw they can get. Anything that can be spun as negative, they do, hoping that it will shun people away from Vista.

        I think you can expect to see lots more of it for many months to come on sites like Slashdot.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by truthsearch ( 249536 )
          The intent isn't to shun people from using Vista. It's to get eyeballs and therefore advertising dollars. The editors here at /. don't care if you run Vista. Most bloggers don't care if you run Vista. But a well written post bashing Vista gets spread around. News corporations make a lot more money reporting negative news than positive news. It grabs more attention.
    • Is there a fee involved to get the certification? Does it involve signing any gag-order like non disclosure agreement? Does MS pledge not to share any info it gets during the certification process with the submitter's competitors?

      If the Fortune 500 companies chip in 100K each, you will have 50 million $ funding to establish a completely vendor neutral certifying agency/institute that will offer True Interoperability instead of the short sighted Microsoft Compatibility. But expecting corporate America t

  • This is a non-story? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyNameIsEarl ( 917015 ) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <0002fssa>> on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:33PM (#18113208)
    Doesn't this just mean that if you can't get an Adobe product to work on Vista you need to go to Adobe as you would under any other OS? Why should MS need to help you make an Adobe product work on their OS, Adobe should be the ones making it work. I use Adobe as my example so the Open Source fans don't get in an uproar about MS keeping the competition down (not that they aren't, but I don't feel they are here).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iamacat ( 583406 )
      Why should MS need to help you make an Adobe product work on their OS

      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.
    • I use Adobe as my example so the Open Source fans don't get in an uproar about MS keeping the competition down (not that they aren't, but I don't feel they are here).

      To be fair, Microsoft has (or had) been developing a Photoshop-esque app [slashdot.org] and Photoshop works fine on Windows Vista.

      It is either:

      A.) Microsoft doesn't like Adobe because they consider it to be a competitor.

      Or

      B.) Adobe doesn't feel compelled to pay the testing fees required for certification.

      My guess is on B, but never attribute to situations to
    • What this sort of thing ends up meaning in userland is that you get support calls from (understandably) nervous customers saying things like:

      "when I tried to install your application upgrade Windows gave a warning saying that xxxx application was not certified and could cause Bad Things to happen to my computer"

      This is even more prevalent now that users are aware of malware and trojans that may disguise themselves as useful or necessary programs. It is sometimes difficult to persuade users to install update
  • I'm not surprised to see OpenOffice and FireFox missing from that list. MS should be doing the work to get all these apps to run on their OS, but I can clearly see why they don't care about those two pieces. But Adobe Photoshop?? What's wrong with them? Are they purposefully trying to herd the remaining Windows-artists to Macs? What a stupid move.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by livewire98801 ( 916940 )
      From TFA:

      Adobe, which will face competition from Microsoft this year when Microsoft releases its Expression suite of graphics and multimedia design tools, did not immediately return a request to comment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by David Horn ( 772985 )
      Why should MS be doing the work? All that list refers to is the list of applications submitted to Microsoft's "Designed for Windows" logo program. The onus is on Mozilla and Adobe to submit their software, not Microsoft to try to include everything.

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by zxnos ( 813588 )
        shhh, you are not allowed to insert logic and reason into an anti-ms thread. a pox on you and your family. :)

      • Photoshop doesn't, and drops the system into compatibility mode.

        It does what? Not on my system, unless I'm missing something. Aero continues to function, no noticeable performance change with CS2 9.0.2.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by LighterShadeOfBlack ( 1011407 )
      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

  • So all those missing apps... (Score:3, Informative)

    by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:35PM (#18113248)
    ...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)
    • It's not free to submit them

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 )
        So?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jeevesbond ( 1066726 )

      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' l

  • A lot of decision makers don't have any clue about what Vista is precisely and what it will do to their business. They just get a visit from their Microsoft rep. and decide something based on that. If the program is not on the list, it's not 'approved by Microsoft' and thus it will not get used by the customer on that basis.

    I wish there were more smart people (or people that know something about computers) are in the places where those decisions get made in companies. We wouldn't have a Microsoft monopoly n
  • 'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software,

    That's not surprising. According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the PC.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

      According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the PC.

      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 acti

      • 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.

        Would you care to explain what functionality useful to any Adobe application is present on OSX and not present on Windows XP?

        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 c

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

          Would you care to explain what functionality useful to any Adobe application is present on OSX and not present on Windows XP?

          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 som

          • 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.

            Oh I see, and this is Microsoft's fault somehow? Adobe has chosen to take this route, prob

            • Oh I see, and this is Microsoft's fault somehow?

              Hey, slow down there champ! I never said it was MS's fault. It is clearly Adobe's fault for prioritizing keeping the different versions for different platforms in synch above taking advantage of all the features of the more functional OS.

              Adobe doesn't use OpenGL at all from what I can tell so I don't know what you're complaining about here.

              Actually, they use OpenGL a lot.

              Core graphics is something of a black box. I can understand Adobe not wanting to turn over image processing to someone else's closed code, especially in products which are primarily about image processing.

              First, not all of Adobe's products have much of anything to do with image processing. Second, there is no reason not to use the capabilities of CoreGraphics and now CoreAnimation, even if that is just to hand graphics off to it and ge

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
      That's not surprising. According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the P

      How ironic then, that the Windows version of their software frequently has features the Mac version doesn't.

      Until recently, Premiere Pro was not available for Mac. Adobe Audition is not available on Mac.

      Adobe Flex is not available on Mac.

      Of course designers don't care about facts, they're creative people.
      • How ironic then, that the Windows version of their software frequently has features the Mac version doesn't.

        Dude, it was a joke... seriously. Everyone knows PCs work great for design. :)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
          Dude, it was a joke... seriously.

          Don't you dare clarify your post, and ruin my bad mood!

  • Non-story. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Atlantis-Rising ( 857278 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:36PM (#18113258) Homepage
    This is a non-story, sensational only in its attempt to stir up a hornet's nest. (But this is Slashdot, so why am I surprised?)

    There's no story here. There is some vague hint in the summary that Microsoft is purposefully not certifying software, but this is a vague and unsupported claim at best. The only real claim that can be made is that some software is not on the list... and so what? There are dozens of reasons. The software could A) not work with Vista, b) not have been submitted for testing, C) be in the process of going through the process...

    What's the point? As another poster said, if it doesn't work, don't use it.

  • Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming


    Or visa versa...it sounds like each of software vendors mentioned has some work to do to get up to snuff. It's not like Vista has been some great surprise; beta and then release candidate copies have been available for months.

  • Wait for SP1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:36PM (#18113264)
    Oh course Vista is a turd now, like every other Microsoft release. Which is why anyone with a lick of sense waits until the first service pack before deploying. Then it will only suck, but that is about as good as Microsoft knows how to make a product so those stuck on Windows have learned to live with that level of pain.

    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.
    • SP1 is supposed to come out a few months from now. This means Vista is in a far worse state than when XP was released. SP1 will only bring Vista up to the level of XP at initial release. My workplace has already decided to wait for SP2 before any deployment.
  • They've footdragged so much on getting universal binary versions of their software to operate on Intel, that I'm not surprised in the least that they'd also foot-drag on Vista-savvy versions of their software. In an interesting turnabout, the fastest native version of their software (for the remainder of the year) - might be - be OSX for Intel - if the damn thing is released for the Mac users by summer.

    Actually I'd be surprised if Adobe's stuff isn't usable in Vista as-is. It's probably just a marketing spa
  • Because I don't see Mozilla coughing up the $10K it takes to get an app tested to be "Vista certified"..
    (I really wonder how much value for the money developers get from this.. and how much is pure profit for MS..)
    • The real issue here is that you need an application signature. Mozilla would have to get a new signature (with accompanying testing) every time a point release came out. Even if it's free, it would delay releases to an unacceptable degree.

  • Never... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Eric Damron ( 553630 )
    The article would have us believe that Microsoft is using its monopoly position to do harm to its competitors but we all know that Microsoft is above that sort of thing. (Checks nose for increase in length.)
    • What would be interesting data, and which would address more clearly display the actual state of affairs, is how many of these 'uncertified' applications were actually submitted for certification, whether Microsoft or the 'independent lab' (whoever actually receives the payment for certification testing) has declined to accept any requests for certification, and which, if any, software that failed its first test has had to go through more than one retest after modification, and whether the testing report co

  • Lacking in gaming... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @03:56PM (#18113618)
    Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming...

    And people still claim Vista's not an OS X ripoff. What more proof do you need?
  • Leopard is looking better everyday. I know it's often troll bait to compare the two but before Vista went wide we were all told it was going to blow Leopard away and Leopard was just a knock off. Now that it's out it's slower, the new security heavily depends on you manually authorizing actions and there aren't many new features. Oh and it's a memory hog. Now we find that they left out support for software I'd say 99% of us use, as in everyone here is likely to use at least one software that isn't properly

    • Now we find that they left out support for software I'd say 99% of us use, as in everyone here is likely to use at least one software that isn't properly supported.

      You are either ignorant or shilling. They didn't leave out support. They simply didn't certify the software in question. They simply would not release XP if Firefox and Adobe apps didn't run. The latter is because Adobe apps are horribly important to the world of business and if that stuff didn't work on Vista a lot of people would be buying a l

  • ...because StarForce isn't on that list.

  • Grain of salt (Score:3, Informative)

    by Cro Magnon ( 467622 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:18PM (#18113998) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • ..should be enough for anyone.

  • How is this Microsoft's fault? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bullfish ( 858648 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:22PM (#18114048)
    They put out the OS, it is up to the software vendors to make sure their software works with the OS. They knew it was coming and certainly had the time. Also, as others have pointed out, this is just a seal of approval program and doesn't mean the software won't run in vista.

  • Firefox works great, Skype has a little trouble. (Score:3, Informative)

    by DimGeo ( 694000 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @04:58PM (#18114634) Homepage
    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.
  • Why should Microsoft 'offically' support a 3rd party application.

    Sure, they shoud not make it difficult for the other companies to compete ( that pesky monopoly issue ), but to claim *fully supported* when they cant control the code is sort of silly.

  • If only MS hadn't developed Vista so quickly (Score:4, Funny)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @07:21PM (#18116538)
    these poor third-party vendors would be ready.

  • Nevermind that OpenOffice isn't on the list... (Score:3)

    by rizzo320 ( 911761 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @09:38PM (#18117798)
    Not even Office 2003 or Office XP are on the list. It seems Microsoft has not even tested older versions of its own software. So much for that backwards compatibility on Windows that everyone talks about.

    *I am aware that this article is in regards to certification and not compatibility. I'm just going along with the masses, since not many people commenting on this article care to recognize the difference!

  • Not to defend Microsoft, but... (Score:3)

    by Schraegstrichpunkt ( 931443 ) on Thursday February 22, 2007 @10:07PM (#18118012) Homepage

    Let's look at this list. (Disclaimer: I have never used Windows Vista.)

    Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software
    I don't know about this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with stuff like the Netopsystems FEAD Optimizer.

    Symantec Corp.'s security products
    The software that's notorious for digging its claws into the depths of your operating system? Gee, I'm so surprised that it doesn't work the same as it does on XP.

    the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox Web browser
    Firefox uses XUL for widgets, so it probably doesn't behave like a native app.

    Skype Ltd.'s free voice-over-IP software
    Skype contains a bunch of weird anti-reverse-engineering code [secdev.org]. I'm not surprised if it doesn't work perfectly without changes.

    OpenOffice.org
    It doesn't support open standards like Microsoft OpenXML. *snark*

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close