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!
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
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.
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.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.