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?"
The most promising workaround (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The most promising workaround (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The most promising workaround (Score:4, Interesting)
Makes you think: One hour perfecting a linux install... versus nine hours hacking (think machete) away at vista (in the hope that it will take less than five minutes to boot up).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The time I've spent tweaking Vista
Re:The most promising workaround (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget VST's (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=74
Under wine, the game has no multiplayer and for some that could be considered completely unplayable, since I don't think many people buy RTS games for the singleplayer.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint for future credibility on Slashdot: you will be more popular (and look less stupid) if you bother to read to the end of messages before posting sarcastic replies.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
You mis-use that word. Vista has a modest slew of bits and pieces that really are worthwhile. When I was using the beta, I went through a two-week period when every tech problem I ran into immediately made me think of a vista feature that would make it easier.
Vista really does do things that Windows did not do previously -- if it didn't, there wouldn't be the incompatibilities that are so rampant. Saying that there is NO benefit is just plain old FUD, and lets a proprietary-software shill get the client to dismiss OSS out of hand.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm currently contracting at one of the larger international banks (HQ in Scotland) and they only just started migrating off NT4 to XP as their certified desktop environment, missing out Win2kpro altogether! It is sad and funny to see people with top specification laptops running NT4 and unable to use half the hardware on their machines!
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?
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:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I picked up Vista because i'm an upgrade whore, and after running it for a month or so, I'm generally disappointed. I gained some flashy visual effects (my Macbook is still prettier) but I'm really sick of all the incompatibilities. I'd tend to blame the 3rd parties, but hell; even Visual Studio 2005 had issues that were only recently fixed. I'm still waiting for my logitech keyboard app to stop tanking on bootup (new drivers due end of April? WTF?).
Basically I'm using it now as a media center host for my 360... which media center 2005 was doing just fine. I think this whole experience is just pushing me farther towards dumping windows altogether when I'm at home.
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...
Easy to Say... (Score:2)
This is particularly difficult for smaller developers such as us...and since we're game developers, we have the whole 'DirectX10 versus OpenGL / DirectX9' issue to deal with on top of everything else...
Oh, and then there's the whole new 'Games for Windows' issues that are thrown into
Re: Your quite right, buy a Mac instead! (Score:2, Insightful)
But MS wants to stop XP sales (Score:3, Interesting)
If MS stops XP sales and forces a Vista change over then just waiting for other muppets to sort things is not a workable strategy.
These incompatabilities run deep. Even some Microsoft stuff does not work with Vista. eg. Platform Builder (used for Windows CE development) is XP only.
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!
Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly (Score:2)
Oh wait, I do that already:) Should I have some schadenfreude that Window users get to join the fun or be more sympathetic? In any case, I suppose this won't prompt any developers of normal apps to develop them in a way to become platform independent (Firefox seem to do just fine as a large project...)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, one of the three people on Earth who have a genuine reason to use BitLocker, and he's posting right here on slashdot! This is an exciting.
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps he owns an nVidia or ATi graphics card, and plays games. Absurd as it seems, he might even own a sound card newer than a SoundBlaster16 that can play 2 sounds in hardware!!
Not any more with Vista.
I thought you'd have some interesting points... (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows ME? Even the people I knew who couldn't know how bad it was knew how bad it was. It didn't take a rocket scientist. From there you devolve into pirate hysteria/name-calling and finish with the flourish on your one provided reason for the upgrade (wow, thank GOD MS provided encryption...I don't know what I would have...).
I'm all for counter-points. I brought the first Vista system into our workplace. I disabled UAC and aside from some of the old/trollish employees not liking it (I did make them use it, they just like to complain) its been pretty good. Lots of non-supported software has worked just as I'd have expected it to. The UI isn't really impressing me, but this is Microsoft and that kind of design isn't something they are known for.
A good reason to have upgraded to it? Not yet. Bitlocker could be done just as well or better with any number of applications. Maybe after the large scale public beta ends at SP1 they have enough quirks worked out that people will start discovering some of the benifits. Maybe not. But no matter how you dice it, right now the biggest benefit to Vista is Microsoft's dominance and decision to push this operating system so aggressively.
In the future please don't formulate arguments based on the assumption someone doesn't like something because their pirates. We hear more then enough of that kind of corporate dribble already. A lot of people won't like X for a lot of legitimate reasons. Claiming Y randomly doesn't provide a logical argument. Just hyperbole.
Have a great Sunday. Just had to speak my piece.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vista is far more stable than XP or even 2000 on a machine meeting its recommended specs with hardware on the HCL.
Right. Whatever.
How did that get modded +4 Insightful? I've found Vista to be a lot stabler than XP on the same hardware also. Here's something that's sure to get me modded down too: I like Vista. I moved away from Linux to use Vista, and I'm glad I switched back. (Note: XP was used occasionally, but Linux was my main OS.) In all honesty though I can't think of any reason why someone would upgrade from XP to Vista for money. I got a copy of Vista for free through my work's licensing agreement, which is why I made th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Vista has proven itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME.
It's still early days for Vista - no need to jump to such conclusions yet. I remember looking at a computer running XP when it was first released and thinking "ugh, that's horrible". I eventually put it on a dual boot with Windows 2000 and slowly but surely XP improved (ignoring WGA for a minute) with better driver support, new software for XP and bugfixes. SP2 is stable and well supported now it's been around for a while. Something which is on the back of my mind though is that if MS do bring out Vienna
Re: (Score:2)
XP is about 20,000 times better with regard to wireless support, and I found it had better performance on the gaming side of things. That said, I preferred the look and feel of Windows 2000 (and thought XP's pale imitation of it looked terrible...but hey).
Re: (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/
Re: (Score:2)
I have been using Windows 2000 for years now and have found it to be the best and most stable Windows OS so far.
I too was happy with XP, until such time as there came alone one adobe application which "needed" xp. The next version resolved this resultion by requiring an intel processor.
I must admit I liked the game support in XP. I could actually run redneck rampage somewhat, a game when released was too much for my lame machine.
The problem is joe user, who firmly believes vista is the way things are goin
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought 2000 was the cream of the crop, and that XP was just nasty useless eyecandy that slowed things down.
I can't remember how, but I screwed up my 2000. I ended up upgrading to XP, something I was hugely worried about. Well, it took me about a week to get all the service packs, etc, but I had my custom shell up in a few minutes and it does run a lot faster than 2000. You just disable all the blue slime.
And when I say it runs faster than
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That simply isn't true. [auckland.ac.nz]
It's not rubbish. (Score:3, Informative)
Do digital restrictions in OSX or Linux:
I'll give you a quick hint: there are no digital restrictions in free software.
The consensus o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is one of the most amusing things about this entire debate. Microsoft really did the impossible with Vista. They united Windows AND Linux fanboys!
Re:It's not rubbish. (Score:5, Informative)
Disable your old media? That article relates to Zune, not Vista. Try again.
Keep you from modifying your kernel? Well, the first response would be "well, it's closed source, what the hell do you expect?" But playing along, those protections would be ideal for keeping rootkits out of home PCs...but of course, Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place with you. They're insecure and buggy, but if they do something about it, they're trampling on your rights. Let's ignore that you can, on boot, disable disabling unsigned drivers for a second.
You didn't even cite anything for your trip bits stuff, so moving on to your last thing...you linked to a Zune article again. Not Vista, Zune. This is like me slagging off Fedora munching my data and then linking to an article about Ubuntu munching my data. Which I'm sure you'd be against.
Then, apropos of nothing, you link to a Slashdot article entitled "What Vista Is Really Like" (which at first glance appears to be another "OMG VISTA SUX" Slashdot circle jerk) and another classic link to your new favourite article, the "nobody wants Vista" article (which consists of a notoriously-unreliable online poll with a tiny sample size...do you realise how many Windows users there are, and how small a percentage of them 2223 people is?) Finishing up with a classic twitter "Let me tell it like it is" paragraph, complete with M$ (nothing about "greed heads" though-I love it when you say that, it makes you sound like a hippie.) Wonderful.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think people are this stupid? For any passing moderators, Erris = twitter = Erris = twitter. They're one and the same. Hence my raucous e-laughter. I bet you'll follow up with a nice long post (under your twitter alias) where you rant about me, dedazo, Macthorpe, Keith Russell and various other people about 1,000,000 times less unhinged than you a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least for now... (Score:4, Funny)
*snicker*
Re: (Score:2)
Debian has 18,733 packages now.
Good for Debian! If Windows has less applications than that, then I would be exceedingly surprised. Seeing as you don't actually have a figure for that, you can't say that Windows has less applications with any degree of credence, so let's melt that point before you let it snowball, shall we?
The rest of your post is the usual invented bullshit that people, including free software coders and other Linux advocates, have picked to pieces time after time. Face it, you're still a liar [slashdot.org], an
Debian Packages. (Score:2, Troll)
An AC, who should remain anonymous, asks:
And how many of those are real apps you could use on the desktop of a large enterprise organisation and how many of them are competeing implementations of libdosomethingmundanetheuserneversees and its separate -devel packages?
Library reuse is the reason a GNU/Linux desktop takes less than 2GB while others ask for 10 before you start adding applications. Each package, however, requires a lot of effort so there's really not that much duplication.
Not that I'm
Broken Apps (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it did, every time Outlook was started, it wanted to do its final install and first run configuration. Same with the other Office Apps as well.
Vista = Forced Obsolescence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(runs away)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Broken Apps (Score:5, Funny)
1.) Notepad.exe
2.) Sol.exe
3.) Winmine.exe
4.) Pbrush.exe
5.) Write.exe
And so on...
Your full of crap (Score:2, Informative)
Vista & Older Windows Apps == DLL Hell of 2007 (Score:2)
This sort of problem even exhibits itself on Server 2003 SBS. For example, it regards Hypersnap 6 as a threat to OS security. I have to specifivally allow it to run. Duh, I'm installing the frigging thing so natural
Re: (Score:2)
if microsoft did take that attitude to security, they would be hassled constantly by people on here about writing an insecure O/S. People are tricked every day into installing spyware and trojans. I'm glad about any additional protection that stops people installing that stuff, even if the side effect is a slight PITA when installing legit software.
Re: (Score:2)
And it all goes back to M$ wanting to control exactly what I can or can't run on my PC.
All it needs is for Microsoft to let the small app vendors register their apps and then Windows can chack to see it the app you are trying to install is listed and has something like an MD5SUM on the main executable that matches that held in the M$ Database.
OR
Let me set myself up as the Ugber Geek/SuperUser/Smart Alec who knows all and then as long as I am installing from this account then it bypasses these c
Ease of Use != Poor Security. DRM sucks. (Score:2)
People are tricked every day into installing spyware and trojans. I'm glad about any additional protection that stops people installing that stuff, even if the side effect is a slight PITA when installing legit software.
Proper user permissions makes it both easy to install software and stop trojans. People complain because M$ has yet to implement the simple read write execute and user flags common and effective in Unix since the 1970s. Instead they use annoying warnings that cry wolf and make the user
Re:Vista & Older Windows Apps == DLL Hell of 2 (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
- Why not just block the apps that rely on undocumented behavior? [msdn.com]
The purist in me would love to take the Linux route and force anybody doing weird stuff to fix their software, but in the long run, Microsoft is a business and their customers want compatibility with shitty software. Reading Raymond Chen's stuff changed my views on Windows backwards compatibility 100%.Upgrading in Linux world vs. Windows world (Score:2)
The thing is, the changes required in Linux world to be compatible with new versions of key libraries are generally minor, well-documented, reasonable, and relatively quick to implement.
In Windows world, that isn't the case, because Windows development is a mess. That is mostly Microsoft's
Re:This is one aspect in which I agree with Micros (Score:2)
When I worked support for a Softwre developer, I would get into arguments over this with them. They wrote an app that basically would try to force its own DLL's into the System directory and require a reboot.
I explain, that if you have to reboot and put things into the Windows\system directory then it is going to give us nightmares on the support end.
Low and behold we actually had someone with a WinNT server install
Re:This is one aspect in which I agree with Micros (Score:2)
Which means?
That once an application works, it IS compatible. There is no other reference implementation to try it against.
If there are multiple implementations (in Windows case, 98, 2000, XP, Vista), once it works on the platforms that are feature compatible, the application works, and again it IS compatible. There is no reference authority OTHER THAN THE IMPLEMENTATION. (and look at the Microsoft Word submissions for additional hedges).
Bec
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is one aspect in which I agree with Micros (Score:2)
They'll patch Widgetron Pro? Sweet. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ado
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't See Much From This Vista, Can You? (Score:2, Interesting)
Adios, Microsoft.
Switched to Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me a little about the Windows 2000 switchover. There was a lot of talk about compatibility issues with various games and apps, but the only thing that affected me was the wonky Sound Blaster Live drivers. Come to think of it, Vista actually supports all my hardware, although I had to slack my memory timings bellow specs. Tip, if you get a BSOD with Win32.sys as the culprit then run memtest86, hell run memtest86 anyway.
16bit installers on x64 (Score:2)
Of course that means only the recognised ones work. There are plenty of installers I've come across which won't work (mostly for games... Dungeon Keeper & Dune 2000 come to mind).
My 'solution'
Windows redesign needed (Score:2)
I see this as the only way to "fix" the Windows codebase which must look like a complete, utter mess after a decade of hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or they could buy the BeOS code base (i think i just threw up in my mouth a little).
Re: (Score:2)
With linux getting better and better with hardware support (Ubuntu Dapper fixed even some paperweight webcams and printers gifted by well meaning relatives..), could we eventually see a MS gui/userland running on top of linux ? Will MS *ever* opensource their stuff ? Windows Neo... 5-10 years out maybe ??
Let's have a sweepstake on when that might happen, just for the kudos, you understand. I'll kick off with 2013 - lucky for some !
Actually it would be *very* cool to h
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people believe there is just too much compatibility cruft in Windows. However, OS/2 and POSIX modules were removed at XP SP2 or for Vista. Search the MS KB and you can find the relevant articles. 64bit Vista will not run 16bit code. Slowly some of it is moving out of the way.
Microso
its so simple (Score:2)
Photoshop CS2 workaround (Score:2, Informative)
I am curious (Score:2)
Raising the standards of Windows software (a bit) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Raising the standards of Windows software (a bi (Score:2)
YOu cannot run a program that never had Virutlisation in mind uder different users. (And the "U no Adminstrator Chrash" makes it even more complicated to explain to user ho to hand things you need administrator rights for.
Of course this can be fixed by using some API calls that are only available on vista.... making you applicaltion not runnign on win98 (!)
Games.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ironically, I've had *FEWER* problems than XP... (Score:3, Interesting)
Vista, on the other hand, appears to let old games work just fine on a Limited account. Obviously, REALLY old games don't work at all, but Win98-era games work just fine again.
Final Thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
"In the end, though, you should seriously consider moving to software virtualization during your Vista migration. Software virtualization allows you to package applications once and only once to deploy them to your PCs. Virtualized applications do not touch the operating system so your systems stay pristine at all times."
If the problems that Vista faces; I am not sure why they didn't take a play from Apples book (no pun intended). They should have:
1) Designed the OS from scratch.
2) Provided a virt
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)
No Brainer (Score:2)
We found deal-breakers on two Vista laptops... (Score:2, Interesting)
So we returned that model for an Acer, and it handles Vista nicely. Sims 2 works, Aero works, it's all very p
At least edlin still works.. (Score:4, Funny)
Intuit used it for marketing... (Score:3, Interesting)
About a month later, QuickBooks downloaded an update that included this splash screen [imageshack.us], with its dire warnings about application incompatibility and system instability.
I resent the fact that Intuit is trying to frighten QuickBooks users into upgrading, and I will never buy any of their products again... even if I'm forced to keep my books in, um, actual books. I also turned off Automatic Updates, because I'm afraid Intuit will deliberately destabilize the software if they don't sell enough copies of the 2007 & 2008 versions.
Anti-Windows FUD is ugly too (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.