Slashdot Mirror
Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps"
PetManimal writes "Microsoft has just released a list of 800 applications it says are 'officially supported' on Windows Vista. What's special about this list, however, are the programs that are not included: 'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software, Symantec Corp.'s security products, as well as the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox Web browser, Skype Ltd.'s free voice-over-IP software and the OpenOffice.org alternative to Microsoft Office.' Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming, as discussed earlier on Slashdot."
...then don't use it.
Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.
"He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
Has the Mozilla Foundation or OO.org submitted an application to undergo the testing program? Probably not.
This list is just the programs that are allowed to put that official Microsoft logo on the box that says the program will work with Windows. It doesn't mean that programs whose developers haven't bothered to go through the testing program aren't going to work in Vista.
Doesn't this just mean that if you can't get an Adobe product to work on Vista you need to go to Adobe as you would under any other OS? Why should MS need to help you make an Adobe product work on their OS, Adobe should be the ones making it work. I use Adobe as my example so the Open Source fans don't get in an uproar about MS keeping the competition down (not that they aren't, but I don't feel they are here).
I'm not surprised to see OpenOffice and FireFox missing from that list. MS should be doing the work to get all these apps to run on their OS, but I can clearly see why they don't care about those two pieces. But Adobe Photoshop?? What's wrong with them? Are they purposefully trying to herd the remaining Windows-artists to Macs? What a stupid move.
Blerg.
. . . lack of Illustrator, Photoshop, Premiere, etc. very surprising.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
They are promised for the upcoming minus pack for vista.
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command =printArticleBasic&articleId=9011635
Brought to you by the captcha: unarmed
...were submitted for "Windows Vista" logo certification? If not, then, uh, what the hell is the point of this article? If you look at the title of the page linked to, it clearly says 'Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo'. From further down:
"The tables in the "More Information" section list the products that currently have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo. There are many applications that are compatible and work well with Windows Vista but that are not listed in this article. This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program."
So I guess we should blame adobe, firefox, etc. for not being on the ball and submitting their apps? Is that the point of this article? Or just more VistaFud(TM)
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
A lot of decision makers don't have any clue about what Vista is precisely and what it will do to their business. They just get a visit from their Microsoft rep. and decide something based on that. If the program is not on the list, it's not 'approved by Microsoft' and thus it will not get used by the customer on that basis.
I wish there were more smart people (or people that know something about computers) are in the places where those decisions get made in companies. We wouldn't have a Microsoft monopoly now.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software,
That's not surprising. According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the PC.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
This is a non-story, sensational only in its attempt to stir up a hornet's nest. (But this is Slashdot, so why am I surprised?)
There's no story here. There is some vague hint in the summary that Microsoft is purposefully not certifying software, but this is a vague and unsupported claim at best. The only real claim that can be made is that some software is not on the list... and so what? There are dozens of reasons. The software could A) not work with Vista, b) not have been submitted for testing, C) be in the process of going through the process...
What's the point? As another poster said, if it doesn't work, don't use it.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Or visa versa...it sounds like each of software vendors mentioned has some work to do to get up to snuff. It's not like Vista has been some great surprise; beta and then release candidate copies have been available for months.
Oh course Vista is a turd now, like every other Microsoft release. Which is why anyone with a lick of sense waits until the first service pack before deploying. Then it will only suck, but that is about as good as Microsoft knows how to make a product so those stuck on Windows have learned to live with that level of pain.
Of course ya just gotta feel sorry for the poor schmucks who buy a new namebrand PC between the release of Vista and SP1 since they don't get a choice. Which is just one more reason why only the uneducated masses buy a namebrand PC.
Democrat delenda est
So... is this 'dir system32\*.exe'...?
I love the irony when people claim that the GIMP is not enough because they need Photoshop, and how Jabber clients will never achieve Skype's level of voice transmission quality.
I don't want to imagine what would everybody say if a new Linux distro stopped supporting some of the most used software in the world...
My 0.02 cents
Wel from MS's perspective anyway. The main purpose of Vista is to generate huge piles of income and revitalising interest to keep MS "fresh" in the eyes of the investors.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
They've footdragged so much on getting universal binary versions of their software to operate on Intel, that I'm not surprised in the least that they'd also foot-drag on Vista-savvy versions of their software. In an interesting turnabout, the fastest native version of their software (for the remainder of the year) - might be - be OSX for Intel - if the damn thing is released for the Mac users by summer.
Actually I'd be surprised if Adobe's stuff isn't usable in Vista as-is. It's probably just a marketing spat between the two insofar that Adobe wasn't going to commit itself to being "Vista Ready" when Microsoft sent out the promotional packets.
at least the games run under Linux with wine
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
Because I don't see Mozilla coughing up the $10K it takes to get an app tested to be "Vista certified"..
(I really wonder how much value for the money developers get from this.. and how much is pure profit for MS..)
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Firefox isn't officially supported on Vista. No really, it isn't. There are a few things that don't completely work, like setting the default browser etc. See the depandancies of bug 369465 (at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36946 5 but they block Slashdot referers) if you don't believe me. Version 2.0.0.2, due in a matter of days, will be the first fully Vista compatible release.
Here's an interesting mention on the "Works with Windows Vista" list:
... but it is listed twice under "Works with Windows Vista".
* Microsoft Corporation - Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor - 1.0.1
The Vista Upgrade Advisor isn't "Certified for Windows Vista"
I use Firefox all the time on Vista and it works as well as anything. I would have been surprised to see it "Certified" by Microsoft, though. I have OpenOffice installed, but I barely use it on that machine. OO Writer doesn't have any problems opening, at least. I really haven't had any problems with iTunes, other than the issue where if I use the Windows utility to Stop/Remove the iPod instead of ejecting it in iTunes, the next time I plug it into that machine, Windows tells me its hard drive may have a problem. I haven't noticed any problems with any of my files on it, though.
I agree that the surprising part of TFA was the software that did make the list. The Google Desktop Search as you mentioned, as well as WordPerfect and some others. But then I guess they have to be able to show that some (a carefully selected portion?) of their competitors' apps can run, otherwise they don't get the privilege of saying that Vista can run all of this software you use that Mac/Linux can't. I don't think MS feels very threatened by WordPerfect, so it's OK to throw them on the list.
Conversely, I would not be surprised if competitors really do not want to be on "the list."
Apparently, this list requires some sort of Microsoft certification. You probably have to pay Microsoft or buy Microsoft products. I can see why competitors would want to avoid that. If my software company already had a well known brand and a decent reputation for reliability, I might want find it more advantageous to be on the conspicuously missing list.
I would only want to be on "The List" if there was an immediate advantage. Being off the list shows independent thinking.
BTW: The same thing happens in politics. Candidates are generally reluctant to get endorsements from a president during the president's later terms. Politicians want to be on the list of rising stars, but are wise to show some independence from those that are in power.
The article would have us believe that Microsoft is using its monopoly position to do harm to its competitors but we all know that Microsoft is above that sort of thing. (Checks nose for increase in length.)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I know it was just a joke, but it doesn't quite work... Apparently you haven't seen the new solitaire. For the first time since Win 3.0 (at least), they've changed the look of sol.
Calc is still the same, though.
Carry on, carry on.
News today isn't about what's new, it's about profit. /. and others (with the alphabelt groups and their Anna/Britney coverage) are interested in the commercial/advertisements inbetween whatever keeps you watching.
Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming...
And people still claim Vista's not an OS X ripoff. What more proof do you need?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hell, they all probably work. Firefox sure does. They just haven't been certified. The certification process takes a while and you have to pay for it. Microsoft sets the requirements and some 3rd party company administers it. After the 3rd party company has certified your product, then you can put the Vista (or XP) logo on your product. You also get listed on Microsoft's web site as having a certified product. Not being on the list means you either 1) haven't bothered to be certified, or 2) you failed certification. It doesn't mean the software doesn't run on that platform.
Leopard is looking better everyday. I know it's often troll bait to compare the two but before Vista went wide we were all told it was going to blow Leopard away and Leopard was just a knock off. Now that it's out it's slower, the new security heavily depends on you manually authorizing actions and there aren't many new features. Oh and it's a memory hog. Now we find that they left out support for software I'd say 99% of us use, as in everyone here is likely to use at least one software that isn't properly supported. Curious how much is competing software? Late last year I made a hard decision to stick with Windows but Vista has made me rethink that descision. I'm planning to pick up some remaining copies of XP to have on hand then dual booting Macs to get me by the dark ages here until the mess gets sorted out. Apples best friend right now may be Vista. It may not be the disaster ME was but it does look messy given the long development cycle. Microsoft seems to have made a lot of decisions based on benefiting them and taken the stance they'll use it because what choice do they have? Well the choice is Mac. I'm not normally a Mac fan but I'm becoming one.
Just an excuse to hate on Vista which is something pretty popular here. It seems there are lots of people who are just plain scared that Vista will be a success. They are worried it will end up being a good OS and lots of people will use it. So they end up grasping at any straw they can get. Anything that can be spun as negative, they do, hoping that it will shun people away from Vista.
I think you can expect to see lots more of it for many months to come on sites like Slashdot.
...because StarForce isn't on that list.
I refuse to use popular distributions of Linux because the developers clearly haven't put any effort into making my Windows software natively compatible.
What were they thinking?
Have you seen what they did to Sound Recorder though? It's now just a "rec" button. It records sound, nothing else! No playback, no simple editing no wave display!
Wouldn't you know it. You get flamebait for making the most reasonable post here. Slashdot would be a real resource if it stuck to technical issues and stayed out of politics, where it has no expertise except the inflated egos of the clueless.
I don't consider that a reliable list. Firefox works great on Vista. I don't know about any of the other products except Symantic, which doesn't really work on XP.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
..should be enough for anyone.
Stick Men
They put out the OS, it is up to the software vendors to make sure their software works with the OS. They knew it was coming and certainly had the time. Also, as others have pointed out, this is just a seal of approval program and doesn't mean the software won't run in vista.
Thank you sir (or madam), for being another voice of reason in this sea of chaos.
Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.
I don't think that's it - I think it's just a rubber-stamp list of whoever signed up, paid their fee, and jumped through the hoops. If they were excluding competitors, I really don't think Google Toolbar would have made the list.
Vista for teh Win!
What does Microsoft have? They have market share (ie. a customer base). They don't have particularly innovative or high quality software products/services and their revenues are largely independent of their offerings. They have you (*). They just have to keep finding ways to repackage you (*) to keep generating income. If MS didn't make Vista, they'd keep selling XP. However, it is very hard to keep dishing up left overs and still keep a straight face. Vista is a statement more than a product.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Certainly 640 applications is enough for anybody!
Clippy.
Precisely why I never buy/use MS any more.
I am a windows XP user, and never really bothered to check out linux because I'm prejudiced against it. I loathe Lotus notes and linux looks to me very much like as much of a torture as notes (Oh notes, how I hate thee.. let me count the ways)
..until then I'll stay far, far, farfarfar away from vista.. infact I'm going to try out linux for a few months before I try vista (even though it'll be a complete pain learning to use it), but until then I'm going to stay with winxp as long as I can.
I like the idea of "free", but I am married to the idea that software should be easy, and design decisions should be about the user (yes, even for the stupid ones.. no let me rephrase, especially for the stupid ones [so they leave me alone with their stupid questions])
and I'm not interested in a black screen with white letter, and a thousand page "man" to try to get things to work.
You know what I'd like? I'd like that it was as easy working with things in an OS as creating a new tiddler in a tiddlywiki.
People might not get the comparison, what I mean regarding to the tiddlywiki is that instead of having to program the whole bloody thing for yourself, editing code to get something 'just right', you click a button, set a title, set a tag, and you're off, and everything is intuitive and easy.
So make linux into a TiddlywikiOS, and I'll love it.
K.
Many stores like Fry's and Best Buy along with "custom" order computers like Dell and Gateway have all but removed windows XP from their selection. It's been a common point in the news lately that almost everybody out there selling computers has practically ousted XP in favor of Vista. The fact is, the customers don't really have an option to buy a computer with XP and very few are going to jump at the idea of spending an extra $100 to get the old operating system.
/. reader above, but rather the generic consumer that only understands that they buy a computer, plug some stuff into the wall and their cable modem, and they can read email, hit some websites, and watch some porn. These people are still limited to windows (or a Mac, which probably doesn't suit their needs either). Linux, despite it's headway, isn't ready for the 'lowest common denominator' computer user.
Take note, I'm not talking about the average
Within a few months, saying "Don't use it" to many of these people will be like telling a one-legged person to "walk it off"
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
Funnily enough, they've included Visual Studio on the list. Two things to note about this:
So, currently no version of VS is supported. It makes me wonder if any other MS products missing from the list or misleadingly added to it?
Conquest's 3rd Law: Every organisation behaves as if it is run by secret agents of its opponents.
They may not be officially supported, but I've had no problems with Photoshop, OpenOffice, Firefox or Skype. Whatsoever. Gaming, however, is an area I can see problems, especially with ATI whose drivers are absolutely awful right now.
Adobes, Apples and the rest of the software world needs to get their sh*t together and catch up with Vista Standards. Vista has been available for 3 years. There are no alternatives if you want best computing experience TODAY other than Microsoft.
Here's my experience so far:
Firefox works on the beta 2, on the RTM, and on the x64 versions of Vista.
Skype doesn't seem to know what's Unicode on Vista x86. Actually, Skype 3.something just displayed an empty contact list on me. Skype 2.something works great, thanks to oldversion.com, but doesn't handle cyrillic characters right.
Why should Microsoft 'offically' support a 3rd party application.
Sure, they shoud not make it difficult for the other companies to compete ( that pesky monopoly issue ), but to claim *fully supported* when they cant control the code is sort of silly.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What this sort of thing ends up meaning in userland is that you get support calls from (understandably) nervous customers saying things like:
"when I tried to install your application upgrade Windows gave a warning saying that xxxx application was not certified and could cause Bad Things to happen to my computer"
This is even more prevalent now that users are aware of malware and trojans that may disguise themselves as useful or necessary programs. It is sometimes difficult to persuade users to install updates to the software that they have already paid you for when they have been cowed by the 'everything unknown by microsoft is a threat' meme that is being promoted!
Amongst the uninformed this tends to strengthen the thought that Microsoft is the only safe place to go for your sofware -and from what I can see of the tremendous online upsell effort on the vista startup windows this fits fine with Microsoft's eventual online 'subscription' model aspirations.
-I'm just sayin'
I understand that they may not be 'certified' but that doesn't mean they don't work under Vista. I have the entire suite of Adobe products running on my Vista Ultimate 32-bit machine: the video production suite 2.0 and the creative suite 2.0, along with dreamweaver and flash 8.0. They all work without a hitch. I also have Symantec antivirus which also gives no problems. Plus am typing this on the latest version of firefox 2.0 without issue.
A little off-topic but if you have any questions about why to use the ultimate edition, just look up Dreamscene. It came out as an extra last week, and it is absolutely awesome to run HD video as a background image without using any processor or ram. It offloads all the work to the idle GPU. Very impressive eyecandy and gets co-workers to stop in the tracks in awe. Yes, I am a geek.
Perhaps even more interestingly, Visual Studio 2003 is not supported on Vista. Microsoft's advice for those of us who still need to develop for .Net 1.1 on Windows, but would also like to upgrade to Vista is
. aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26 /772250.aspx
a. Run VS 2003 in a virtualized XP environment. (!?!?!?) or
b. Don't worry...it will *mostly* work - just don't try and 'complex debugging'. (!?!?!?)
Behold: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/bb188244
Not only that but VS 2005 - yes, the latest version - requires a Vista compatibility service pack, after which it still complains about incompatibility and needing a FICTIONAL *Vista* update. (Though, it does work if you press 'Continue').
So, is it really any suprise that it doesn't officially support major products from other vendors? *Sigh*
caritj.org
Interesting... every app mentioned in the summary except Symantec AV has worked in Vista since before release, and there's now a working Symantec AV release. The only ones I can't speak for are the adobe apps, I've only used Reader in Vista so far.
i have yet to meet a graphics professional (layouts, artwork, modeling, etc.) who doesnt use a mac.
Same here, not one graphics pro I've met uses only Windows. They use Macs most of the tyme but some use Windows occasionally. And I know of none that use Linux.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Who wants that bloated garbage anyway?
Get NOD32, and be happy. Vista compatible too!
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
For the few things I need a graphics editing program for these days, GIMP does the job for me perfectly. Evince in Linux (and freakin' Preview on the Mac) kicks the dogsnot out of Acrobat Reader for speed, stability, reliability...
Post-2001 or so, Adobe has almost always equalled bloat in my personal experiences with it (across three platforms - Windows, Linux, and OSX), so I can really, really sympathize. Take it as you may.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This is bordering on alarmist... just gotta bad mouth Vista some more eh? Unsupported simply means that they won't testify in court that they guarantee that these applications will work 100%. Of those 800 applications, the reason Firefox, OO, Adobe, etc. were singled out was to instigate anti MS sentiment. While, it's not too tough, you have to realize that's all it is... not news.
Now you know why I don't use Linux or a Mac. Vista runs everything I need, something I can't say for Linux or OS X.
While Linus doesn't run all the apps I want it to run, Macs certainly do. Well, with one exception, IE. But it can be run either in a VM or via Crossover. Macs, and Linux, have a big advantage over Windows though, it (they) don't crash or freeze on me nor do they show me the BSOD!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Microsoft has everyone brain washed into believing that whenever they release a new operating system, or even a service pack, that it is normal and expected that application programs that worked on the earlier operating system might not work on the new operating system.
In real operating systems, (here comes the flames), people should expect that their application programs work without flaw year after year. Businesses that depend on working application programs should not stand for having to change or rewrite their applications every time the operating system changes.
I work in the IBM mainframe environment (but run FreeBSD/OpenBSD at home) and I never have to worry that our applications don't work whenever we change operating systems. As long as we write to the supported system interfaces, IBM takes great pains to ensure that everything works going forward.
The mainframe (MVS) environment has had many major architectural changes in forty years but applications written back then still work. From 24 bit addressing in the 1960's, 70's and early 80's to 31 bit addressing until the advent of 64 bit addressing in the current operating systems, the old applications continue to run.
Microsoft should be ashamed of its efforts to ensure upward capability.
This is a new iteration of Windows. There will be programs that work and others that don't. Microsoft is obviously trying to find the ones that work. This is part of their certification program. Programs that work will make it through...those that don't will not. Is this astringent classification too much...well then don't apply. It's astringent and you didn't make it. Their are ideals perhaps you will get it correct next time.
"Slashdot would be a real resource if it stuck to technical issues and stayed out of politics..."
Hey, Slashdot is providing a public service here. I need a daily dose of MS bashing. I like it. I want it. I get withdraw symptoms if I don't read any. I have wet dreams of the day when Microsoft's usage is ~50%. So, until then, I need my fix.
(different AC here)
I checked out a few of your posts and they all seem unusually well-reasoned for slashdot. This is why I end up having to browse at -1 all the time. Sometimes the best posts go against the herd mentality and get hidden.
I sat down with a Vista machine for the first time the other day. Nice slick interface - looks promising.
...
.. and discover that there is NO sendmail. Have to use outlook, but thats a PITA to setup, so I just telnet to port 25 on the development server and do it manually. Primitive !!
.. its no easy task finding the missing parts and installing them. Looks like manual searches of the net + manual installation via setup.exe is required all the way. Oh - tar and gzip/bzip2 have been forgotten as well, so that will be an interesting exersize. No wget either, so its manual operation of IE all the way. Point point click click.
.. WTF ?
I then went to check out some of the more critical functions of this new operating system, and was shocked by what I found (or what I DIDNT find actually)
Firstly, I check how up to date the compiler is, and check out the distributed compilation features. gcc - Not there. Someone at Microsoft mucked up bigtime - they FORGOT to include the compiler. OOPS ! Looks like distcc will have to wait.
Maybe they misplaced it, and forgot to include it in the PATH ? So I fire up a command window to search for the compiler.
C:\ find / -name gcc
FIND: Invalid switch
Huh ? After some investigation, it looks like FIND is some sort of messed up version of grep. And talking about grep - WHERE IS IT ? Its not to be found anywhere.
Undetterred, I push forward to install some missing components. I want to ssh to my master repository to see whats up. You guessed it - NO SSH. Completely overlooked by the Microsoft QA department!! Looks like Ill have to telnet in and do it that way.
By the way - whilst looking at the network configuration, I found another QA error - they mucked up the spelling of 'ifconfig' - they accidentally let it slip out as 'ipconfig'. No big deal, but you cant expect to just make up new names for commonly used standard utilities like that.
Anyway, cant find anything useful in the repositories. An 'emerge --sync' doesnt get me any closer either - In fact the emerge command itself, and the entire portage tree are also missing in this Beta release of an operating system.
I might just email something off to tech support
Lacking a compiler, I try out some scripting instead. bash, python, php, perl, tcl - ALL MISSING, zip, zada, zilch, not there ! Vista (in this early version) is going to be a pain to administer in any sort of automated way. Basic filters such as cut, sed, awk etc - not yet implemented. Sort appears to be implemented, but the parameters are all fucked up - again, you cant just redefine standard utilities to suit yourself - naughty naughty Microsoft !
I need not mention that vi and emacs are not implemented, nor are lightweight editors such as nano/pico/jed. Looks like you are stuck with notepad, or even 'edit' - which is all well and good, but how on earth are you going to do remote maintenance on one of these boxes without huge bandwidth usage ? vncserver is not installed by default, and there does not appear to be anything on port 6000 to allow for such remote connections.
ps and kill - not there either.
cvs and svn clients - MISSING. Without a portage tree (and without any sort of implementation of apt or rpm)
Another surprise - cron is completely missing in this release. No job scheduling for Vista ! There does not appear to be any concept of runlevels implemented in this 'operating system' either, no scriptable init engine, no simple mgetty style implementation, and no configurable boot loader
Having said all that - the GUI does look OK, you can move the mouse around and drag windows and things. Cool. The Windows in Vista are resizable, and there is some indication of which window has the current focus. There is a start button type thing in the corner, and you can make a menu popup. Cool. WOW even.
Conclusion: Virtually all of the critically important functions of the operating system seem t
Adobe: Crashybloatware. Ever time Acrobat reader comes up on any of my computers, I always worry about if it'll crash and burn (it doesn't take the OS with it, but it usually brings down associated apps like firefox). I use Corel Photopaint myself instead of Photoshop, *MUCH* faster.
I've thought of getting Corel Photopaint as a standin for Photoshop, right now I can't afford Photoshop, however it doesn't really have all the capabilities pro photgraphers need in a photo editor. Photopaint is an excellent app for painting photos though so I could use it for some things. For instance I'd like to take a colour photo and save it as a B&W then paint, hand tint, the photo.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If that's the case, you're going to be changing your sheets well into your old age:)
Speaking of Macs, has Adobe shipped a native build of PS yet?
Adobe will release a native port, or universal binary, for CS to run on Mactels when CS3 is released. Currently they have it in beta.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So if I'm running Vista and downloading Photoshop CS2 can I make an argument that I was doing nothing wrong as the program I was downloading wasn't even supported by my OS anyway? :)
Where's Opera on that list? We all know it's the best browser ever! This is a conspiracy!
Article is tl;dr but is Duke Nukem Forever on the list
Gaming, I haven't seen any official support for any of these: Ventrilo, World of Warcraft, Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, and Diablo 2 But they all work.
As for Adobe Graphic Programs, Adobe Photoshop CS2 is working just fine.
So does XSane 0.991, WinSCP, PuTTY, RealVNC, 7-zip, OpenOffice 2.1, ClamWin, Nero, AdAware, Filezilla, Acrobat Reader, Sun Java, Diskeeper and a boat load of other programs.
I didn't actually look at the list, so I've no idea how many are or are not on the list, but I would dare to guess that most are not. Just because a program is not on the list does not mean it is not going to work... I doubt that MS was able to comprehensively test every single Windows program in existence...
The tools mentioned here have nothing to do with whether they are well used or not. To get on the list, you need to be a Microsoft certified partner and have a Vista version for your software.
I say this is the weirdest and most useless list I have seen Microsoft produce in years.
(image windows inside the workspace) that don't have the Glass Effect. They won't have the glass effect if you don't enable theming for the child Window, which is what the problem is.
interesting :p
these poor third-party vendors would be ready.
This is like complaining that Linux is missing critical components like clippy.
It appears that Vista isn't supported by Vista either.
The original generic sig.
Your version of OpenOffice may work now, but wait till they release a "security patch" for it. Since it's officially unsupported this seems like it could be a problem for sysadmins.
judging from the lists, most of the programs look like they aren't free and or opensource, thus that completely voids the entire list for me. out of millions of programs out there only 800 verified....
good luck with that microsoft
What the fuck is up with Application name ?????????? version number not provided....
Those appear everywhere on that list...
This is non-sense and useless. First, this list is about the "logos" earned by a few softwares and second, it looks like from the completeness and the look of the list that the logos where earned by just giving a few bucks to Microsoft so that they appear on that list and get the logo...
This thing is about publicity for those softwares and companies, not about compatibility!
In Slashdot usual language, this would be a "nothing to see here, move along" kind of post.
Have a nice day!
Not even Office 2003 or Office XP are on the list. It seems Microsoft has not even tested older versions of its own software. So much for that backwards compatibility on Windows that everyone talks about.
*I am aware that this article is in regards to certification and not compatibility. I'm just going along with the masses, since not many people commenting on this article care to recognize the difference!
Let's look at this list. (Disclaimer: I have never used Windows Vista.)
Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software I don't know about this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with stuff like the Netopsystems FEAD Optimizer. Symantec Corp.'s security products The software that's notorious for digging its claws into the depths of your operating system? Gee, I'm so surprised that it doesn't work the same as it does on XP. the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox Web browser Firefox uses XUL for widgets, so it probably doesn't behave like a native app. Skype Ltd.'s free voice-over-IP software Skype contains a bunch of weird anti-reverse-engineering code. I'm not surprised if it doesn't work perfectly without changes. OpenOffice.org It doesn't support open standards like Microsoft OpenXML. *snark*http://outcampaign.org/
I just had the displeasure of working with a Vista PC today, and Firefox, Spywareblaster, Spybot S&D, Office 2000 (Which I somehow doubted), and many other apps work with it. It was a setup for an old lady who refuses to give up Compuserve (which doesn't work on Vista, I should've done research, but oh well), has a dial up connection, and didn't want me to take it home to install XP on it. That was a freaking nightmare.
:-)
And this is off-topic, but I have had this fucking plantar wart on my big toe for 9 months, as long as I've been fighting with my [expletive deleted in case i ever end up in court] landlord, and then I had to use Vista. You know what? That's not off-topic after all. Now it is.
But yeah, Vista asks you what kind of network your connecting to EVERY TIME YOU DIAL UP. Thank you. You can, however turn off the are-you-sure-you-want-to-do-that dialogs. Oh, the point is, that list is probably just what a)was supported out of b)what they thought was commercially viable to advertise as supported.
I'm going to drink some beer, and think about my fucking wart. Which I have been freezing with ether from a wart freezing kit. I hate my life.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
But now fun OSX games like Photoshop aren't certified for Vista!
Well, no one said it was a perfect copy...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What? No Tomb Radier?! Well, that does it for me. No Vista.l
Actually the patches are here: http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/windowsxp.htm
Do you think there will be a recall of Vista? Either that or an anti-trust or class action suit within the next few years.
I sure as hell won't be using it, and when Windows XP Product Activation forces me to reactivate my product, and the activation Web site/phone number has shut down (due to Microsoft cutting support for what is probably the world's first vaporware OS), I'm going Linux or Mac. That is, unless Microsoft changes their ways, cutting the DRM out and making their products compatible again.
I am still upset that I have no sound in warcraft III and other games :(
... on my personal list of compatibility with me is not a single microsoft product
the change in the behaviour of the program files folder... That was one of the biggest FU they done.. It's so illogical as installing a program in any other folder as 'program files' fixes the whole problem, and therefore rendering the whole program files protection useless.. The biggest problem is that anything that is written after installation to the program files will be redirected to the specific users path, which means logging in as another user misses all the data (and if programs have their own updateprograms, the latest versions).. I wonder which moron ever came up with this.. The biggest problem also is that most softwaredevelopers never knew about this, at the last MS meeting in november I heard so many mumbling in the room when this 'feature' was told that the speaker had to calm everybody down.. We tell our customers, just nog to install it in the program files folder, and then everything works great (except for everytime that annoying message when starting the program)..
think your cool with your vista? Try runnig some mp4 like oh say download this:x %20-%20Provocateur.mp4
http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/12/14/510316/Lu
(an animation about a nice little girl and a bar of lux soap)
Then try run it in WM 11.
You need a plugin. I won't even tell you which one. (there is one though)
It's not working is a FEATURE motherfucker! Got that one working?
Your missing some more.
Let's not even go into the 2-3 hours you'll need with reshacker to fix the fucking URGE button.
And you can't stop it from dialing home (for automatic updates) once a month either.
Then you got some services to turn off. Figure out which ones baby. Why the fuck did microsoft do this shit?
Vista - Where Can't you Go Today?
XP - 10 years finally becoming stable.
doon't think linux get's off scotfree
Linux - Still can't do shit with Cinelerra.
I notice that Microsoft Bob is conspicuously missing from the list...
-prof
The Clippy is dead. Long live the Clippy.
I have a friend that wants to purchase a new laptop. I suggested Apple but she is more familiar with Windows and doesn't want to pay the extra $500 or so for Apple hardware, even though it can now run Windows.
Anyways, It looks like she will be going with Dell for her laptop, which unfortunately now comes with your choice of Genuine Windows Vista Home Basic, Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium, or Genuine Windows Vista Business.
One of the main reasons she didn't consider Apple is because she does not want to learn a different operating system and although similar to XP Vista is a different operating system. With all the bad press Vista has been getting and me passing on information to her about which applications she has that she will not be able to run or will have to do modifications to make run (like Apple's iTunes) she does not want to run Vista.
My question is if she buys a new Dell laptop, like their Inspiron 1501, will we be able to install Windows XP on it, completely wiping out Vista, thus getting rid of all the issues of Vista and keeping her learning curve to a minimum? Or has Microsoft required vendors to put some "screw you, you will upgrade, resistance is futile!" chip in the system that will keep people from doing what I have suggested?
Thanks!
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Skype is fine. Just update to the latest version (which is probably why there was a new version released.. to make it fully compatible). In fact, having used Vista, err.. since it came out... I can say that I have had a lot less problems than with XP. Once all the drivers are installed, (most of the XP ones work fine with Vista) everything works very sweetly. I would not know about games though -- never play 'em. Never played 'em on XP either.
Windows XP does the job and now the bugs are mostly squished and they try to shove Vista on us. Vista, hahaha forget it.Noone I know is touching it with a 20 foot pole.
I use some of those apps on my Vista install (the basic UI, I don't have the graphics hardware for the fancy AERO stuff).
...
Firefox runs just the same as it always did, as does OpenOffice.org 2.1
Adobe PhotoShop Elements 3 editor is pretty horrible to use though. The screen doesn't repaint properly, and cursor clicks and drags don't land where I expect them to (there's sort of a 10-ish pixel offset to the north-east.
Adobe have released a patch for Elements 5, but releasing a fix for my 3 year old version 3 is probably well off their list of interesting projects
Other useful (free) things that are broken are PDFCreator, which just won't install, and Synergy keyboard and mouse sharing, which installs and runs but won't start automatically as a service.
Also my Hauppauge HVR-1300 causes the machine to restart randomly if the device is enabled.
Oh and Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 performance was terrible (very sensitive to host OS load), but luckily VPC 2007 RC is fine to use for my purposes.
You probably guessed I'm planning my migration back to XP (MCE 2005), which will probably be a little more work than the "Insert disk and click yes" that I needed to do the upgrade.
"It doesn't support open standards like Microsoft OpenXML. *snark*"
.. Office Open XML is an approved Ecma standard'
You have to be kidding, but I will address the one issue. In your alternative universe how is an ISO approved standard - not standard. Why didn't MS use OpenDocument as the default file format, that way there wouldn't have to be a file converter written. What was the Microsoft Linux lab doing up to now. 'OpenDocument is an approved ISO standard
Not to defend Microsoft, but... (Score:3)
davecb5620@gmail.com
OK, I will definitely do that if it doesn't fall off in the next couple of days as it "should" according the freezy thing. I really really appreciate it. :-)
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Good hell, you're right! I thought you were joking, but then a joke like that would have been funnier if we were talking about a Mac, so I should have known. I guess it makes more sense than having it be the default player for .wav files.
But I would have thought Sound Recorder would be all Aero'ed up like sol... Buttons fading, and flipping around, the recorded sound magically enhanced by the power of DirectX, and requiring a performance index score of at least 1.0 to run...