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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

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."

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: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.

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.

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!