Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Windows Apps Not Ready For Vista
narramissic writes "A new Apple technical support document confirms that none of the company's Windows Applications are compatible with Vista. Affected applications include: 'QuickTime, the iPod shuffle reset utility, Bonjour for Windows, AirPort for Windows, the iDisk utility, AppleWorks for Windows, and Apple Software Update for Windows. The stand-alone iPod updater for iTunes 6 for Windows also isn't ready for Vista.'" The article refers to an Apple tech support document dated "today" (02/08) — without providing a link — but a search turns up only this one from 02/02.
From my experience, Quicktime works fine under Vista, and I've used it extensively. The apple software update works as well. Perhaps they mean it works, but just isn't supported?
mmm...muffins
I remember the iPod updater didn't work back in June with RC1. I don't know why Apple's waited this long to even announce that their software doesn't work - although I have a sneaky suspicion it might solely be for PR purposes. "Look at this awful operating system. It breaks EVERYTHING! Buy a Mac instead."
Or perhaps there's a completely innocent explanation and I'm just being a touch paranoid.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Apple worries about apple, just as Microsoft is worrying about Microsoft.
I love macs, but iTunes sucks for windows anyway..Winamp FTW!
I don't think it's apple. Most of the antivirus products aren't working with vista yet. Drivers for hardware are being worked on. This isn't apple fumbling. Either the world fumbled Microsofts' throw, OR Microsoft threw badly. I'll let you decide which is more plausible. ;)
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
If all these applications are not officially supported on Vista and it is just hitting the press now, I'm guessing this is a marketing decision more than a technical one. Just a hunch.
I don't for a moment believe this is an accident. Since Apple surely had access to the beta versions of Windows Vista all along to make sure their apps were compatible with Vista, there are two distinct possibilities:
a) Apple intentionally did not release Vista compatible versions of their software so that their iPod/iTunes masses would have a compelling reason to not buy Vista and consider buying a Mac instead.
b) Microsoft intentionally submarined Apple's software, specifically iPod/iTunes, because they want they Vista upgraders to consider dumping their iPod in favor of a Zune.
Either way, it's interesting that the music player industry would have such a compelling affect on choice of operating systems. I guess MP3 is this generation's killer app.
boxlight
It's often been suggested that Microsoft give up a lot of legacy and backwards support in the Windows line and start anew. The official line to that is that Microsoft wants to assure customers of their commitment to existing technology blah blah blah.
Seems like if your Windows 2000/XP applications aren't working on Vista then the backwards compatibility they treasure so much really isn't that important anyway.
As I recall, Microsoft publically made available an RC version of Vista, and Apple makes iTunes and Quicktime (non-Pro, at least) available to everyone to download. Both parties should have known, but it would probably be in the best interests of Microsoft to make sure it would work since they are the ones putting themselves on a limb with Vista.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Thank you.
I don't seem to remember it being such a big deal when Microsoft was fashionably late to the porting-apps-to-OSX party. Their stuff (mostly) worked under Classic from day one. It was no big deal; folks barely even noticed.
Comparatively speaking, this is making a mountain out of an almost imperceptible molehill.
should be spent getting their apps to work on Linux and just abandon Vista. Would be a good attack against M$ and I would really like to use iTunes in Ubuntu.
Or, maybe, the apps are actually broken on Windows, and Microsoft didn't set out to break Apple's stuff.
Microsoft changed a lot of stuff, maybe it just broke in a predictable but not malicious way. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but even I don't need to see a conspiracy here.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
QuickTime hasn't run on Linux in a long time.
Apple, please port your apps to Linux first, and _then_ complain about Vista not waiting for you.
- - -
I strongly disagree with that. If microsoft releases an OS you can be guaranteed that it will be shipping on almost every new PC sold after its release. I'd go as far as to say that the cost of getting your applications ready during pre-release stages of the OS is a lot less than the support hassle of pissed off customers calling you when the floodgates open.
There's no reason 1 person in your company can't install a public beta of a new OS or service pack and try out your programs. You get months or even years of time to get things prepared. Your company will also look a lot better in the eyes of your customers if your stuff already works when a new OS is released.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Apple probably back-burnered development because:
1) Ship dates for Vista were always slipping
2) They were working on MacWorld O7 products under slave master Steve
Besides, it's not like MS has the cleanest Karma in this regard anyways.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
The system requirements pages for Adobe Premiere and Intuit's Quicken Deluxe don't mention Vista. If either application doesn't work quite right under Vista, dag gummit, it must be a plot to RUIN MICROSOFT!... and not just the ordinary course of development for supporting new OS releases.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
"This sounds a bit apologetic, but the bottom line is that Apple has had two years (at least) to get their shit together with widely available documentation and SDKs from Microsoft that many other software companies have happily used so far.
What makes you think Apple wants to get their shit together for Vista? IMHO the less things that work with Vista the better...
I don't understand why Apple is being held to this standard. I can't remember the last time Microsoft Office didn't require an update to move from "sorta works" to "supported" following a major Mac OS X update.
Likewise, I'm not blaming Microsoft here. The product I worked on until a few months ago isn't supported on Vista yet (something that's entirely unrelated to me being on something else).
The point of pre-release software is to test that software. We use pre-releases to prepare for major changes, to report unintentional changes back to the vendor, and to build a list of issues to re-check and possibly fix in the final. Sometimes if we're doing something wrong that's being exposed, it'll get fixed right away, but we don't try to work around ever pre-release OS issue.
If you live on the razor's edge, expect a bit of blood from time to time.
You're right, a lot of documentation has been available for a long time now, but you're forgetting two things:
1 - The last release of iTunes was a quite a while ago, it is quite likely that the Vista API has changed since then. If Apple released iTunes now and it wasn't compatible, there would be no excuse, but during iTunes' development, many aspects of the OS were still up in the air.
2 - Many companies that are using the "widely available" documentation is having trouble getting their apps to play nice with Vista, and those that have released things in the last year or so find themselves having to patch their app to work right under Vista. This includes my company.
Apple is far from alone in the "help! my legacy app doesn't work in Vista!" camp.
It sounds like they do have versions of their software that works "perfectly" under Vista instead of being "unsupported". They just don't want to release the version yet, for whatever reason is part of the speculation.
The cynic in me thinks that there is something fishy going on from both Microsoft and Apple. And I know for a fact many older games which ran fine on XP won't exactly be "Vista Supported" either so why the hate? This is just the usual bumps and hiccups for any upgrade rollout.
It's also equally likely that Apple's products were never fully compatible with XP in the first place. Apple's track record for Windows software isn't exactly what I would call stellar. Of course, neither is Microsoft's, and while Apple shines on their own platform, the Windows versions of software like QuickTime have often left much to be desired.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'll see your camera and raise you a Laptop.
I have Asus A6T bought new in October, covered in 'Vista capable' stickers.
Asus do *not* intend to produce vista drivers for this model, Apparently a 64bit dual core laptop is 'obsolete' according to their techs.
Asus suck.
Of course, as you say "not ready" doesn't mean "doesn't work", but I would expect Apple to *at least* get Quicktime to function correctly.
Uhm, isn't that the point the GP was making? It does function correctly. At least, that's what people seem to be saying (I don't have Vista myself). So it isn't officially supported yet, so what? It would be kind of silly to declare "official support" before having the real, final, public version(s) of Vista so they can work out all the details (as opposed to the beta versions they can use to recognize major issues and minor things that may become issues if they last into the final version).
With minor exceptions, these applications work. They function correctly. They just don't have official support from Apple yet, but they will soon. Why is this even a slashdot story?
I am the man with no sig!
Asus do *not* intend to produce vista drivers for this model, Apparently a 64bit dual core laptop is 'obsolete' according to their techs.
Sounds like that model is class action lawsuit-ready.
In a large corporate environment such as Apple or where I work, you cannot officially claim that your product works on a consumer install of a particular operating system until someone from QA goes to the store, picks up the consumer install disk (or you get the consumer install disk in the mail--the pre-release "Release Candidate" install doesn't count) and actually tests the entire product on the final release operating system--even if you have been using Vista internally for development for more than a couple of years.
There have been several times when the final release of the operating system in the consumer channel was "slip streamed" to fix last minute bugs--and while the potential of one of those last minute fixes affecting your code is low, it's not unprecedented.
So for Apple to claim that they do not officially support Vista right now just goes more to conservative QA testing than it does to sloppy programming, not having access to pre-release builds of Vista or not caring about the product.
>If I was Apple I would just switch to selling nice PC boxes with Vista (or Linux) and can OSX.
While I'm quite happy with my Linux desktop systems (at home, in the lab, an in my office), when the time came to buy a
portable, the only serious choice for me was a MacBook Pro. There's no way I was going to switch to Windows from Linux,
and I really didn't want to go through process of installing Linux on a notebook if I could not know in advance that every
component would work. Been there, done that, many times. I *did* look, and I found nothing that combines utility, portability,
and function to the degree of a MacBook, so it was a no-brainer.
But then, a Windows user; especially a Windows *developer* might not be as happy about such a switch.
I realize TFA is in regards to specific applications. Trying to care. Nope.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Conversely, putting Apple software on a Windows box is like putting a rose in a crap garden. That doesn't work a lot better. There might be a rose there, but it's still a crap garden.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This one is pretty funny:
Title: Opening IIS WAP project non-elevated silently fails to create misc files project
* Description: A developer has already run Visual Studio with elevated permissions and created a new WAP project on IIS. The user then runs VS without elevation, and opens that project using MRU list. When opening this project without running VS elevated, the project opens fine, but all the ASP.NET functionality is broken and project will work more like a class library.
* Workaround: While there is no error message shown, Visual Studio needs to run with elevated administrator permissions even after the project has been created.
Its so casual and conversational.
Do you mean to say that MS Office v.X was ready by March 24, 2001, the day Mac OS X 10.0 was released? Or would you think it would have been ready by September 25, 2001, the day Mac OS 10.1 was released?
How about Windows Media Player for Mac OS X, released only 3&1/2 years into OS X?
His point is "whhahahhahahahah how dare you criticize Apple!!!! Whaaaaa" I've been on /. for many years but I still don't understand the love for Apple as a company.
I own an iPod. I own two, actually, because I recently bought a Nano for when I'm working out. I have an intense affection for my iPod. It's beautiful and usable and blah blah you've heard it before.
But my love does not extend to the billion dollar corporation that produced it. And it certainly doesn't make me think that the Corporation can do no wrong.
But around here, if you dare speak bad about the Cupertino kids you get seriously chastised by both being flamed and modded down.
Let's talk honestly: Apple dropped the ball with Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this is done on purpose. In fact, I don't see how it _WASN'T_ done on purpose. As others have said, they had ample time to make sure that their killer-device worked on what will be the worlds most widely installed OS. I'm left thinking that someone there thought that a user thinking 'vista broke my iPod' isn't a bad thing.
As a software developer, I (and others), realize that in this case, the blame falls on Apple, not Microsoft.
I butter my bread writing Windows software but I'm also sure that in many ways Apple beats Windows. Not in every way, not even close. In some way Microsoft beats apple, in most things, they're about the same. Accepting this is like accepting that in most ways, a Honda is the same as a Toyota. Each has certain areas of excellence, but neither is glaringly deficient.
I'm probably singing karma just saying these things outloud, but I believe that we should talk about things on the merits. Instead of an unorganized censorship system, which is what happens here when people speak good of Microsoft or ill of Apple/Linux, why not welcome the debate as a chance to match wits and prove that your chosen platform is actually superior.
The kind of censorship that's done using the Moderation system here just smacks of type of thing that some people hate Microsoft for.
His point is "whhahahhahahahah how dare you criticize Apple!!!! Whaaaaa"
/. for many years but I still don't understand the love for Apple as a company.
I've been on
I own an iPod. I own two, actually, because I recently bought a Nano for when I'm working out. I have an intense affection for my iPod. It's beautiful and usable and blah blah you've heard it before.
But my love does not extend to the billion dollar corporation that produced it. And it certainly doesn't make me think that the Corporation can do no wrong.
But around here, if you dare speak bad about the Cupertino kids you get seriously chastised by both being flamed and modded down.
Let's talk honestly: Apple dropped the ball with Vista. Maybe, just maybe, this is done on purpose. In fact, I don't see how it _WASN'T_ done on purpose. As others have said, they had ample time to make sure that their killer-device worked on what will be the worlds most widely installed OS. I'm left thinking that someone there thought that a user thinking 'vista broke my iPod' isn't a bad thing.
As a software developer, I (and others), realize that in this case, the blame falls on Apple, not Microsoft.
I butter my bread writing Windows software but I'm also sure that in many ways Apple beats Windows. Not in every way, not even close. In some way Microsoft beats apple, in most things, they're about the same. Accepting this is like accepting that in most ways, a Honda is the same as a Toyota. Each has certain areas of excellence, but neither is glaringly deficient.
I'm probably singing karma just saying these things outloud, but I believe that we should talk about things on the merits. Instead of an unorganized censorship system, which is what happens here when people speak good of Microsoft or ill of Apple/Linux, why not welcome the debate as a chance to match wits and prove that your chosen platform is actually superior.
The kind of censorship that's done using the Moderation system here just smacks of type of thing that some people hate Microsoft for.
That's garbage. Tech support reasons were hardly what was behind the AARD code.
First of all, the code *is* present in the final win.com. What's different is that they added a flag byte in the final version to control if the error message should appear or not. A one byte patch will make the "error" message re-appear in the final code. Basically, they patched around it once caught. In all likelihood, their lawyers figured out it wasn't a great idea.
Why did the code present a confusing bug like error message of "Non-Fatal error detected: error #2726" rather than a simple "MS-DOS not found" message? The code didn't even check for something *useful*, like checking the data structures to verify that they contain information they're going to need later.
And if this code was so benign, why was it using all the tricks that copy protection routines used, self modifying code, XOR encryption, anti-debugger tricks? Why spend developer hours *hiding* this code? They had nothing better to do? Time on their hands, Windows was finished, they're just waiting for the release date, so what the heck, let's try our hand at obfuscating some code for fun.
The real story.