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.

Comments

Not exactly accurate

[daveschroeder]

Not "ready" or "supported" on Vista != "doesn't work on Vista" or "never will be supported on Vista"

Also, what does "compatible with Vista" mean in this context to most users? If a product works just fine on Vista, what does something being not "compatible with Vista" mean to end users?

That is, all of these pieces of software work fine, except iTunes, for which Apple has released a temporary fix until the next iTunes release, which will officially support Vista. The next QuickTime release will also officially support Vista, though the current release works fine.

Yes, yes, they're not officially supported on Vista and that's a consideration, but this submission acts as if none of Apple's Windows apps even work on Vista, when actually they all do.

Also, that isn't a "new" Apple technical support article. It's been around since at least November 2006, and simply enumerates the versions of Windows officially supported by Apple's various software products for Windows. Considering Apple has already stated that at least two products (iTunes and QuickTime) will officially support Vista in their next versions, and Apple has released a temporary fix for their only Windows product that has identified problems with Vista (iTunes), I fail to see how this is news.

Should all of these applications have been qualified for Vista? Perhaps. But this is Apple we're talking about here, and meanwhile Microsoft has systematically killed off several major products on Mac OS X, even as Mac OS X's marketshare increases (Windows Media Player (Flip4Mac is neat, but is no substitute and also doesn't support Windows Media DRM), Virtual PC, VB in Office, Outlook, and so on).

Apple's new Apple Software Update for Windows (which does work on Vista) will bring down new versions of itself, and every other applicable Apple product, in a seamless and automated fashion when they become available.

Next? (Slow news day?)

Re:Not exactly accurate

[dedazo]

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.

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. If they're not interested, that's fine. It's not like Microsoft needs Apple software to work on Windows. It's the other way around at least for the time being.

I have no idea what "has systematically killed products blah blah" has to do with anything. If Apple wants to systematically kill their apps on the Windows platform, I'd say that's fine. Quicktime has gotten better in the past few years but it's still buggy and brittle. At least it doesn't take over every media association in my computer and try to stick me with a non-removable tray icon anymore.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Bastian]

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.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Gropo]

I have to say that iTunes is butt ugly on Vista, much like it was on XP.

And yet unsurprisingly it shines on Windows 2000 like a software Tek Jansen, sent from the future to save me from assured ugly GUI demise.

12 executions of iTunes in unison: "GO THAT WAY!"

Re:Not exactly accurate

[bitserf]

I'm sorry that I'm using iTunes on Vista with no problems.

I didn't know I had to wait until it was "ready" or "compatible", since "working" seems to imply former.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Nasarius]

widely available documentation and SDKs from Microsoft that many other software companies have happily used so far

These "many other software companies" apparently does not include Microsoft.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[nbritton]

"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...

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Grail]

You seem to be operating on the assumption that Apple didn't get it's act together, when it's equally likely that the reason Apple's products aren't fully compatible with Vista is that Microsoft changed some API calls at the last minute in a way that was not fully compatible with the previous two years of that API's existence.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Zonnald]

Hello, We are talking about the latest versions of Apple software, you are talking about 2 previous version of Visual Studio .Net. Had you read on on your link you might have noticed:

Microsoft released Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1 and the beta of the Visual Studio 2005 SP1 Update for Windows Vista. For more information, see Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1. To submit feedback on the Visual Studio on Windows Vista issue lists, or to report new issues, please visit Microsoft Connect.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Trillan]

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.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[p0tat03]

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.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Nasarius]

No, I'm talking about Visual Studio 2005, which gives you an enormous warning message when installing on Vista. There was no update when Vista was released to businesses, and now after it's available to everyone, the update is still in beta. It sort of invalidates GP's snide attitude about having "two years (at least) to get their shit together", when Microsoft still doesn't have its shit together.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[ergo98]

I'm failing to see your so-called point.

Are you intentionally being dense?

Visual Studio 2005 with SP1 is not currently considered compatible with Vista. There is a different patch called "SP1 for Vista" that is in beta, exactly as the GP stated several times.

Microsoft has a number of products that have issues on Vista, so the whole "Get their shit together" thing seems a little ridiculous.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Mr 44]

How is the parent comment in any way insightful? Vista RC1 was released 5 months ago, and there were very very few major changes from RC1 to RTM. And it would be one thing if thir software worked perfectly on Beta2 or RC1, but thats clearly not the case...

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Jim_Maryland]

Check out ESRI's desktop products for support on Microsoft Vista. Apple is by no means the only company to not immediately support Microsoft's latest OS. Yes, releases have been available but that doesn't require the company to have an update immediately available. How long have some of the Apple products been out?

Oh, I looked at some of the IBM Tivoli documents as well and when selecting the OS in the support section, they haven't updated to include MS Windows Vista yet. I also saw the following question in one of the Tivoli support questions:

Problem
Several customers have asked if TBSM has plans to support the soon to be released Vista Operating System.

Solution
Due to the upcoming TBSM 4.1 release, there are currently no plans for TBSM 3.1 to support/run on the Microsoft Vista O/S.

From the BEA WebLogic site, neither their current release (9.2) or their preview release (10) are listed as supporting Vista. They only cover XP.

From a quick check of the Oracle website, they didn't have support at Vista release as well. 32 bit support 1st quarter 2007, 64 bit sometime in the second half.

Why bash Apple when they are not the only company that hasn't jumped at Microsoft's latest creation.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Garse Janacek]

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?

Re:Not exactly accurate

[w3woody]

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.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Saint Stephen]

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.

Re:Not exactly accurate

[Rogue Pat]

Along the same line of reasoning, why doesn't Microsoft's own Zune product work with Vista?

Re:Not exactly accurate

[encoderer]

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.

Not Ready

[drooling-dog]

With so few 3rd-party applications available, it would appear that Windows Vista is simply not ready for the desktop.

Re:Not Ready

[archen]

Not just applications, but hardware for that matter. I just found out that my HP5400 scanner won't work with Vista. HP says too bad, "consider buying a new product (from us)". It's sort of interesting that people criticize Linux for it's driver support as they're mostly written by someone other than the vendor, but windows depends on those vendors for drivers which means you're often SOL after a certain period of time.

Re:Not Ready

[QuantumG]

Not to mention the terrible driver support, and where's all the games? Macs have more games than Vista, and compared to consoles, no PC platform has any signficant number of games.

Re:Not Ready

[Nasarius]

Ha! I saw a few days ago that Logitech is doing the same thing:

This Camera will not work with Windows Vista. Please see our list of newer Vista compatible cameras.

Nice.

Re:Not Ready

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Re:Not Ready

[JoeRandomHacker]

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.
Sounds like that model is class action lawsuit-ready.

Re:Not Ready

[rifter]

Not just applications, but hardware for that matter. I just found out that my HP5400 scanner won't work with Vista. HP says too bad, "consider buying a new product (from us)".

That's nothing new. Typically HP direct-attach printers and scanners only work with one version of Windows. They expect you to buy a new one every time a new version comes out. The only exception seems to be their network printers which are usually bought by corporate customers, have a more or less generic interface, are more expensive, and most importantly are real printers. One of the things that drove down the cost of consumer printers was the rise of "winprinters." Like winmodems, winprinters delegate important functions that were once implemented in hardware to the driver and other printer software. This virtually guarantees that such hardware will only work on one version of one OS.

That's where Linux zealots have their revenge. Whereas people may not give a rat's ass that their printer or modem will not work in Linux or on the Mac OS, they soon find that new versions of the OS, and sometimes even service packs, put them in a position where they have to buy a whole new piece of hardware because it just became a brick.

It reminds me of a funny story, too. A company was stupid enough to buy one of those 4-in-1 HP printer/scanner/fax/copier things. But they needed to upgrade their accountant's computer to Windows 2000 to get better security and support newer versions of quickbooks. Unfortunately this meant now their fax machine didn't work. And even though they were lucky enough in that HP was nice enough to make drivers for Windows 2000, they were mean enough not to offer them for download from their website and require $99.99 + shipping to get the CD with the drivers. And after exhausting all other options and confirming this was indeed the case, the company paid and waited 2 weeks to get them with "rush shipping."

As long as companies can get away with screwing customers they will. But when "everybody's doing it" as is the case in many industries, or when they have the upper hand for some other reason, or they just have a giant market share, the balance of power is so much out of whack that it's pretty much impossible for companies *not* to get away with it.

They're in good company....

[edwardpickman]

I'm not ready for Vista.

Misleading

[Adam Zweimiller]

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?

Re:Misleading

[stratjakt]

No I think it has more to do with paying MS for the little bit of QA that lets them put the "certified for Vista" sticker on the box.

I have a handful of old NES carts that never bore the "Nintendo Seal of Quality", and they worked fine too.

This is just slashdot at it's lamest level of its-not-news-but-we-can-bash-msft-if-we-spin-it-is hness

Didn't work six months ago

[David Horn]

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.

Re:Didn't work six months ago

[0racle]

Everyone, including Microsoft, has waited for Vista to be released retail before handling Vista incompatibilities. Of the big ones I know of, Visual Studio also does not officially have Vista Support, and Vista RTM warns you of this when you install it.

Re:Didn't work six months ago

[venicebeach]

I don't know why Apple's waited this long to even announce that their software doesn't work

They have made no such announcement. As the editor notes, the only relevant tech support article is one that simply lists which versions of Windows each piece of Apple software is supported for. The article is updated when this information changes. It has not been updated to claim Vista support, since they don't promise that yet. This is different from Apple announcing that Vista breaks their software.

Re:what a joke

[IwarkChocobos]

Apple worries about apple, just as Microsoft is worrying about Microsoft.

I love macs, but iTunes sucks for windows anyway..Winamp FTW!

Re:what a joke

[pionzypher]

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. ;)

Re:Repeat of DOS is not done?

[Why2K]

"DOS is not done, till DR-DOS wont run"

That doesn't make any sense. The quote was "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run."

Not all that surprising...

[ivan256]

Since installing Vista ultimate, my experience has been that less than half of software I used on XP which hasn't been updated specifically for Vista doesn't work. Many won't even install. It's going to take some time for the support to be reasonable.

Standard Operating Procedure

[mpapet]

In my experience, the devs didn't port anything to a brand-new OS release that wasn't their _core_ business until it was, for all practical purposes, released for sale.

From a business perspective, there is little reason to rush to an OS that few people are using. Even if it's microsoft.

Many consumer hardware/software vendors will have some kind of support for Vista by Q4. Apple included.

Re:Standard Operating Procedure

[|Cozmo|]

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.

Marketing decision?

[bakeman]

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.

hmm...

[slashes]

Do I smell sabotage? It's quite ironic that all these Apple programs are "broken" in Windows Vista. Why not other programs? Maybe I'm thinking a bit to farfetched, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody from the Microsoft side deliberately told its software engineers to somehow break compatablity with Apple programs.

There are two possibilities ...

[boxlight]

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

Re:There are two possibilities ...

[falcon5768]

or how about 3) most major applications including many of Microsofts own apps dont have Vista support yet, and Apple simply waited like everyone else for Vista to actually be in peoples hands.

Re:There are two possibilities ...

[drinkypoo]

If that was really their intention, why would they release a temporary fix?

Misdirection.

The question isn't whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid enough.

Re:There are two possibilities ...

[dreamlax]

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.

But the Zune doesn't work with Vista either!

Re:what a joke

[evn]

They did. All of Microsoft's Macintosh applications still runs in the Rosetta processor emulation environment. Macs with Intel processors have been shipping for more than a year and no fix is expected until the second half of this year. There wasn't a version of Microsoft Office that worked in OS X until after Apple had released 10.1 - before that it ran in the classic environment.

Backwards Compatible?

[Applekid]

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.

So much for backwards compatibility

[nysus]

I'm always reading about poor Microsoft and how hard it is for them to have to make their OS backwards compatible with older software. I guess that's just a bunch of BS?

Re:Repeat of DOS is not done?

[gstoddart]

Dont know if Apple is deliberately creating FUD by claiming that Vista breaks all these applications or if some deep skunkworks inside Microsoft nostalgic for the good old days of "DOS is not done, till DR-DOS wont run".

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

Really?

[iceperson]

Can you name a few apps? I'm running Vista here and everything I've thrown at it works (short of iTunes which still won't work using any of the suggestions from Apple.) A few things I'm using just fine here are Dreamweaver/Fireworks/Flash, Photoshop, Acrobat Pro, OOo, and quite a few legacy in house apps.

It is about time to ditch QuickTime

[G3ckoG33k]

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.

- - -

Re:Apples Time

[Nasarius]

I would really like to use iTunes in Ubuntu

Pfft. Amarok beats everything. The only things it can't do is update your iPod firmware and download stuff from iTMS.

Re:what a joke

[IwarkChocobos]

"The next version of Office for Mac - named Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac - is under development and scheduled to be available in the second half of 2007." http://www.microsoft.com/mac/default.aspx?pid=macI ntelQA So, why the complaining about iTunes when Vista just came out? This seems a bit more important, as well as ::ahem:: late.

Re:Apples Time

[westlake]

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.

that new Vista Premium system will have damn good specs for media play.

when fully half your revenues come through sales of the iPod and iTunes you do not drop support for the OS that ships or will ship with 95-98% of the new home PCs and consumer laptops sold world-wide.

Apple Probably Surprised

[catdevnull]

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.

All a Bunch of Crap

[jerquiaga]

I'm using Vista Business and Vista Ultimate, and all of those products are working just fine for me. All of this hype over Vista breaking everything hasn't seemed to really pan out for me. The one program I haven't gotten to work is NetStumbler, and I have a feeling it's because MS changed the way drivers interact with the system, and NetStumbler doesn't like that. So, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I have three machines with three different sets of hardware and various apps, everything seems fine. Definitely not a large sample, but who knows. Everyone just calm down a bit.

Well bust my knuckles.

[underwhelm]

I don't see Adobe or Intuit or anyone else in a great big hurry to release a new version of their software just because Microsoft has started selling Vista. Why should Apple be held to a different standard (i.e. that software released to work with one OS is expected work with the new OS the moment it hits the street)?

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.

WHO CARES ABOUT iTunes? HOW ABOUT - CISCO

[n1_111]

CISCO does not have a production VPN Client compatible with Vista. There is a beta floating out there, but it does not work on several Vista boxes (fresh installs, and modified ones) that I tried it on. Here are statements from CISCO: "Cisco is planning to release the Vista 32-bit IPsec VPN Client at the end of March." "Vista 64-bit is planned for approximately CY3Q/CY4Q07 as part of our next-generation client "

Of course!

[Reality Master 101]

I'm pretty sympathetic to Apple on this score... after all, Microsoft has rushed Vista to the market so quickly, NO ONE could possibly have kept up with Microsoft's torrid pace!

Cut the poor Apple engineers some slack!

Oh noez! Omgz! Oh noes!

[alisson]

If you upgrade to vista before SP1, it's your own fault :)

It Sounds Like They Did Though

[EXTomar]

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.

Re:bye bye /.

[Canthros]

Strange. I just dropped digg last week because, their write-ups were almost consistently asinine (and equally exaggerated), and their comments actually managed to be less informed and level-headed than the ones at Slashdot.

Seriously, suit yourself and good luck to you, but I don't miss digg cluttering up my RSS reader much at all.

FWIW

[Yaztromo]

For what it's worth, I'd like to note that none of Microsoft's Vista applications are Mac OS X compatible, and it's API has been stable for far longer than Vista's has been.

Yaz.

Re:Apples Time

[jb.hl.com]

Or copy album art to a 5G iPod, or not delete all the album art currently on your 5G iPod (at least with the latest firmware).

Other than those, Amarok is just peachy :)

Re:without PC users Apple is finished

[dloose]

Good, than they can go bankrupt. At least 80% of the iPod and iTV sales will be coming from PC consumers, they control Apple now.

So, in your mind, this is what will happen when people are deciding whether they want to upgrade to Vista:

Potential Upgrader: Hmm... this new Windows Vista sure is getting a lot of hype in the press. Bill Gates was on The Daily Show and he said I should buy it. Bill Gates sure is smart. I better do what he says.
<p>
*PU goes to the local Best Buy and encounters Best Buy Employee*
<p>
PU: Hi there, BBE. Bill Gates told me I should upgrade to Vista. What do you think?<br>
BBE: Vista is absolutely amazing. It's secure, fast, and pretty. I recommend everyone upgrade to Vista!! There is a problem though... Do you have an iPod?<br>
PU: Of course I do. What do you think I am? Some kind of loser?<br>
BBE: Unfortunately, iPods don't work with Vista right now.<br>
PU: Hmm, that's not good.<br>
BBE: But don't worry! I can turn that frown upside down! Why don't you pick up that >$100 box of software and accompany me to our super MP3 department. I'm sure we'll find a nice alternative to the iPod.<br>
PU: BBE, you're my hero!

That's interesting, because in my mind, it goes more like this:

BBE: But don't worry! I can turn that frown upside down! Why don't you pick up that >$100 box of software and accompany me to our super MP3 department. I'm sure we'll find a nice alternative to the iPod.<br>
PU: Uh, hold your horses there, cowboy. I just spent $200 on an iPod and another $50 on songs from the iTunes Store. Now you're telling me I have to buy a new MP3 player and then find all of those songs again? This >$100 upgrade just turned into a >$300 upgrade. <br>
BBE: Actually, you'll probably want to upgrade your video card too -- better tack another $200 on to that total.<br>
PU: No thanks, I think I'll stick with XP.

Hell, the company runs Intel. The think different campaign has passed as they are owned by Intel now.

You might want to double-check your sources on that one. I don't think Intel owns Apple.

PC users will never buy OSX (period), they do not want to pay a luxury tax for a system that they can do less with.

"Can do less with"? Wow. I never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right. There are so many things I can't do with my Mac. I can't have a meaningful conversation with it, toss the frisbee around, wear it as a jacket, or use it to trim my nosehair. Excuse me while I go throw it in the trash.

Please. Macs can do the same things Windows & Linux PCs can. Sure, there are some applications that are better/actually existent on one platform or another, but for most users they all accomplish the same thing: mail, web, photos, word processing. Grow a real argument.

If I was Apple I would just switch to selling nice PC boxes with Vista (or Linux) and can OSX.

I'm sure when Jobs retires you'll be first on the shareholders' list.

Re:without PC users Apple is finished

[fishbowl]

>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.

iTunes isn't even supported on WinXP 64-bit

[joe_n_bloe]

I don't think people who haven't used 64-bit WinXP can even begin to appreciate the scope and enduring nature of the compatibility problems with Vista.

The last time I checked, the current version of iTunes wouldn't install on XP 64-bit edition. (The installer didn't allow it.) I do have iTunes installed on my 64-bit XP box, but that's because I got lucky and downloaded a version that would. The following version wouldn't install. No version of it has ever been supported on 64-bit XP as far as I know.

Maybe all is well in the 32-bit Vista world, but I kind of doubt it.

Re:iTunes isn't even supported on WinXP 64-bit

[Yosho]

I'm guessing it's been a while since you've checked, because I'm running the very latest version of iTunes (7.0.2.16) on XP 64 with no problems.

Funny, I didn't Notice That...

[Greyfox]

After all, installing any Microsoft software on an Apple would be like crapping in a rose garden. You're wandering around your lovely rose garden and suddenly you come up on a big pile of crap. I didn't buy my rose garden to look at crap.

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'll start feeling sorry for Vista users

[skingers6894]

when I get my Universal binary version of MS Office.

Re:Mac OS X breaks programs?

[mehgul]

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?

Re:Not exactly accurate (W/ Line Breaks!)

[encoderer]

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.

Re:Repeat of DOS is not done?

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

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.

Isn't it funny

[tkrotchko]

Isn't it funny that as people who love technology, we're faced with Vista that has really awful drivers support, obnoxious licensing, exists as a way to force a unified DRM model on all users, and yet we all sit around and say "Well, I guess I'll eventually repurchase everything, seeing as how Windows has to win out".

I'll paraphrase a joke.

A old Unix hacker was sitting around and he prayed to god... he said "Dear God, I don't like Windows Vista. It's everything I don't like, the vendor has a bad attitude, it's expensive, it's proprietary, and the DRM is taking away freedoms that I believe are my right. Won't you please send me an OS that can take over from Microsoft?"

And he prayed and prayed, but after a few months he said "well, I need a new computer, and god won't answer my prayers, so I'll buy that new Vista powered laptop"

And so the old hacker eventually died.

He came before God in heaven, and he said "God, I prayed for deliverance from Windows Vista, and you didn't listen, so I ended up buying Vista, and it became the dominant OS on earth"

And god laughed and said "You idiot, I sent you Red Hat, I sent you Ubuntu, I sent you Mac OS X and a whole host of other options but you wouldn't take them"

Something to think about.