Slashdot Mirror
Working Around Vista Apps' Incompatibilities
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft says there are over 1,000 applications you can run on Windows Vista with few, if any, issues. However, Windows apps number in the tens of thousands. Add to that the facts that x64 Vista versions don't support legacy 16-bit code, and that the Windows Resource Protection in Vista breaks some apps, and you've got a big issue. InformationWeek lists a host of workarounds in How To Manage Windows Vista Application Compatibility. Among the tips discussed are Vista's compatibility mode, its Program Compatibility Assistant wizard, and a little-known form of file and registry virtualization that's built into the OS. What problems have you encountered with incompatible apps, and are any issues you've encountered deal-breakers that could further roil the already muddied adoption picture for Vista?"
Don't bother with Vista at the moment. Let some other muppet sort out the pain.
Deleted
Don't get Vista!
I have been using Windows 2000 for years now and have found it to be the best and most stable Windows OS so far. 95 and 98 were a constant headache with the BSOD and XP is just 2000 with a ton of useless eye candy, not to mention the PITA of product activation everytime you want to change the hardware.
Vista has proven itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME. Nothing works with it, it is full of DRM crap that keeps you from doing anything and there is really no reason to "upgrade" to it anyway.
Sales are far below what MS thought they would be because no one really wants it anyway, witennesed by many government and corporate organizations even refusing to allow their systems to be switched over to it.
In a word, it's a disaster!
Boy sounds like moving to Vista (and wanting to run Windows apps) requires as much work as moving to Linux. All the work but no reward of getting a more advanced OS like Linux - sounds like a loose-loose situation. Looks like its time for more OT in the marketing Dept.
Its not the years, its the mileage
I dont touch MS software with a ten foot pole, but for Vista I've ordered a 100 foot pole.
Even the MS fanb^H^H^H^Hapol^H^H^H^Hafficionados are saying to stay away from it, it must be bad.
Of course, one of the problems of using MS is that eventually, MS is going to force you to, either directly or indirectly. For the gamers, eventually new games wont run on anything but Vista, and for business folk, once a few businesses are conned into upgrading to it (and of course new versions of Word/etc, which will of course not open in earlier versions, that any business that interacts with them (that is stupid enough to consider MS-Word a good format to exchange data in) will have to ugprade too, and so on. And they call GPL software viral.
And of course, with Vista's build in 'calling home', when and if MS wants you to move to something else, they will just slowly tell every Vista that 'calls home' thats its obsolete, and it will slowly begin to lose functionaility, and eventually you'll be forced to upgrade again.
Just like the drug pusher, MS cannot make money unless you keep buying more. To borrow a phrase from another war: 'Just say No' to MS. Now is the time to get off their drugs.
The application should strive to achieve compatibility with the OS, not the other way around. Microsoft has been wasting boatloads of resources on just maintaining backward compatibility with bugs and misbehaving applications (or so sayeth the leaked commented Windows OS code). This is the shortest possible explanation for how the Windows OS family has become the mess that it is today.
If they feel they need to expend the resources to get compatibility in order, here's what I think Microsoft should do:
PATCH THE APPS. Distribute or make downloadable the patches and upgrades necessary to make it happen. Hell, it could be a quality way for Microsoft to improve their relationship with vendors of all types. They'll spend the money anyway.
I've been running the Business version of Vista 32-bit since January and I've only had a couple apps not work properly. All the games I've tried have worked (some with a crash here and there, but that's nothing out of the ordinary), most of the productivity software I've used is just fine, and the random other stuff hasn't been a problem.
All the people that keep saying "wait 6 months for it to be fixed" forget something: 5 years after the release of XP, they were still fixing it. If you're not going to adopt until the OS is "fixed", then you've got a long wait ahead.
The irony is that I'm not even sure why home users would move.
I've been following Vista developments for years, since back when there were going to be three big pillars underlying it. As far as I can see, from a technical perspective, the only remaining major functional improvement over XP is that Vista supports DirectX 10, and Microsoft are pretty much guaranteed to restrict that artificially to Vista-only.
Of course, going by the history, that won't even start to affect any games except Microsoft's own for at least a couple of years, since most games software isn't using everything DX9 offers yet. Similarly, DX10-supporting hardware won't be even close to mainstream for at least a year or two. Given that PC games now represent only a quarter or so of the market (the consoles are well and truly in charge today) and the majority of home users still aren't going to have Vista for a while, games companies may be hesitant to tread those waters even as they reach the point where the extra goodies in DX10 may be genuinely useful.
Apart from that, what possible reason is there for a home user to upgrade? There's been a lot of negative press for Vista, not just about DRM but also all the hardware and software compatibility problems. The UI is different, which for many users means "bad" by default, even if with time they might come to prefer it. If home users were really serious about security, the world wouldn't be full of botnets. And the list goes on...
I can understand businesses with professional IT people placing some value on improved security or networking features, so if and when the compatibility is sorted out and the trust issues with phoning home and being activated/disabled/whatever remotely are irrevocably fixed, businesses might move. But home users? Not for years, except for the people who just get it with new PCs. (And even the rate of buying those isn't what it used to be.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
There's only two things I can think of that don't work in Windows XP x64 that weren't bad practice in Windows XP x86 or even Windows 2000:
1: Device Drivers
2: Kernel hooks (e.g. Anti-virus software)
Any software that doesn't use either of these, doesn't work on Windows x64 edition, and is less than 5 years old, was obviously not very well written.
Would you trust a program to be secure and bug-free if it doesn't even adhere to the OS's guidelines?
"Vista has proven itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME. Nothing works with it, it is full of DRM crap that keeps you from doing anything and there is really no reason to "upgrade" to it anyway."
1) How did it prove itself to be as big a mistake as Windows ME? No one knew how bad ME was until a year after it when Microsoft was already almost done with XP. ME was an intermediate OS, which was why it sucked. Vista is far more stable than XP or even 2000 on a machine meeting its recommended specs with hardware on the HCL. 3 machines in my house run Vista without a problem, and two of them have the dreaded "Vista Capable" logo.
2) DRM crap? I bet you don't even have a bluray or HDDVD drive in the first place. Hell, I bet you torrent all of your movies, so you shouldn't be complaining. Vista doesn't DRM everything. You can still watch your torrented movies (it's the only way to get decent HD rips anyhow)
3) no real reason to upgrade. Right, well I found BitLocker to be a perfect reason. To each his own; I can see where you're coming from but there are people that disagree with you.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
With all the problems VISTA seems to have, and expensive upgrade needed, better buy a mac. VISTA seems to be as bad as Windows Millennium was.
My experience of Vista is limited, but from what I can tell a lot of the incompatibilities come from developers getting used to the slack security and expecting things like Administrator priviledges, write access in to \Windows, acccess to HK_Local_Machine etc. There was some breakage going from Windows XP SP1 to SP2 as well, and since I use a User account on XP, it's sometimes been a struggle to get some apps (and some parts of XP itself) to work right. While I suppose MS could have made compatability better by having real virtualization of an older Windows or what have you, if this makes apps behave better overall then maybe it's for the best.
I don't mean this as a flame, but I'm sure it will be mod'ed as such, but this needs to be said.
I used to really worry about trusting business, especially MY business, on Linux. "Who" would support me? What about my data? What if it breaks, etc.
After spending more than a decade using Linux as my OS of choice, my worries about Linux are almost gone, but I have realized that there are bigger worries that people don't even realize they have to deal with with Windows.
Microsoft is a single company, and if not an out right monopoly, certainly a virtual one. They are in the position to make autocratic decisions regardless of customer demands. DRM? Discontinuing Windows XP? If my company had a product that people wanted, I wouldn't be able to, responsibly, stop shipping it.
The average office is held hostage to Microsoft's whims. Vista is a perfect example. It breaks existing applications, it needs far more resources to run. It has a much more draconian set of licensing restrictions and obligations. Yet, Microsoft can STILL stop Windows XP regardless of the customer need.
Linux is better. If the company you have decides to change and break your applications, you don't have to upgrade. You can, more or less, add the "cool" new features of the new release without breaking your system.
The average home user goes it alone, they either do it themselves, have a nerd-buddy, or use something like geek squad. Medium to large size offices typically have IT management services, and the Linux model is typically better for them, if it were not for vendor.
If ODF takes off enough to the point where "Microsoft Office" is optional, you'll see a lot of companies switching users to Linux just for the TCO. (M$ TCO FUD not withstanding)
Oh, no they won't. Several large parts of the US Federal Government have already implemented blanket bans on the use of Vista. It is highly likely that several very large businesses will do similarly, along with other government departments in the US and elsewhere, for exactly the same reasons. There is no way Microsoft is going to turn down thousands and thousands of future XP sales to customers of that scale just because its new toy isn't selling well.
If you don't believe me, take a look at Microsoft's rhetoric around this time after XP was released, and then take a look at how many major customers were still able to get Win2K years later, and indeed how many still run it. They might say they're going to stop, but they're firing blanks and both they and their major customers know it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I agree on this. For example, Nvidia had literally a year and a half with a stable driver API and they are still working on getting a decent driver for Vista. We knew this thing was coming, some companies just didn't feel customer satisfaction was a good enough reason to put in the work. Don't give me the crap that its because Vista is so different/hard that no one can they shouldn't need to make drivers for it. It's just an issue of business not prioritizing customer satisfaction.
Moving to Vista is easy, Let me tell you about my last reinstall to vista (some months ago) I put the disk in and followed the installation instructions. I validated it with WGA, I let the account popup, windows update installed every single driver (excluding my Creative Webcam which has no x64 driver vista or xp) then I changed the Aero bar colour and personnalised some of it (including switch to 5.1 speakers.) Installed all normal software and espeacially PowerDVD XP so I could watch DVD Movies (Creatives Drivers don't yet support DTS and Dolby) and my current selection of games. From expearence I can't get Visual 2003.net to work properly and it seems microsoft have no intention of making it work. Visual Studio 2005's patch actually appeared in windows update as soon as I installed VS2005. Had no problems, heard about the Direct sound issue so went through game library turns out any of my games pre quake 3 either won't install or have no sound, I was very miffed until I released to get at these games I'd gone into the loft and opened a sealed cardboard box.
My list of non functioning stuff on vista after two months:
Gametap (they admit theres no x64 version of the software and refuse to let the prog install on x64)
Audigy SE drivers need more work (sound is basic promised driver is Q2)
Creative Vista IM Webcam (ironic theres no x64 VISTA driver in the works for it)
Visual Studio 2003.net (a pain since I became attatched to this but the uni gives away 2005 as well so....)
Every other XP application I have thrown at it (excluding those games) has worked perfectly on it from Visual Studio 2005 (since patched) to Proteus ISIS software.
I personally don't have a problem with the idea that you have to be administrator to write to anywhere other than c:\users\$username\. It is radical idea for Windows, but other operating systems have done that for a lot longer. Slashdotters criticised MS for not having this policy. Now it appears they are criticising them for listening to their complaints.
(UNinformed, I daresay) People here keep saying things along the lines of "The irony is that I'm not even sure why home users would move"
/informed/ (not neccesarily geek, could be joe-average, just informed) home-user, this is a HUGE advantage. Yes, it has a learning curve, yes, he will need to get a simple explanation of what the greyout means and to "Just Say NO" when he's not sure (or ALWAYS SAY NO, if he's a dumbass, and let his neighbourhood tech do the adminning), and it will save him mountains of time, money and pain paying said tech even more to clean out the malware from his computer every 3 months.
One acronym, three letters.
U.A.C.
Corps (already serious about their desktop security, using access-regulated policies and usually domains) gain almost nothing from the new User Access Control model in Vista. It's all for the home user who doesn't have a sysadmin to disallow him to touch anything in C:\WINDOWS and C:\PROGRAM FILES. The underlying ability to have user access policies on the computer has been there since NT4, effectively since forever.
It's the bolting it into a homeuser-centric UI and turning it into what is, for all intents and purposes, "sudo", integrated into every nook and cranny that requires straying into privileged space that's new.
For an
For all of you who are overfed with FUD, or haven't bothered looking at anything since you've looked an the unfinished (RC) product:
NO, YOU DO NOT NEED TO HANDLE ANNOYING POPUPS WHEN BROWSING ALL THE TIME. I keep getting that a lot, and it just doesn't happen anywhere except in people's anti-MS imaginations.
You need to handle annoying popups when you go to places you shouldn't be. Routine tasks VERY RARELY involve doing that (and if you're one of the elite few who do need open access to the system, just disable UAC altogether, it's got a big ON/OFF switch).
We've all been beating M$ with a stick for 20 years about the inherent lack of security of all OS's up to XP where the user effectively works as root. IMHO, we were RIGHT. Well, they finally fixed it. I am NOT saying windows and/or UAC is unhackable or unexploitable or mature or some such. IT IS NONE OF THESE.
However, they finally introduced a seatbelt, and when lining it up against pre-vista seatbeltless windows where the user belongs to Administrators - just about 99.99999% of the world's home installbase - (in an otherwise seatbelt-equipped world - macos, linux, etc), that's a fundamentally major change WHICH IS A GOOD REASON TO NOT RESIST CHANGING OVER (if, say, you get a new computer, or are reinstalling an old one anyway and don't mind forking out some coin - say, 100$, for some RAM if you're sub-1GB).
UAC is a major homeuser-targeted change that I think non-fanboy professionals should embrace. It'll annoy people at first (seatbelts annoyed people at first too), until they get into the habit of using the system the way it's meant (minimal straying outside userspace), at which point annoyance factor becomes minimal and people accept the extra hassle, because it's a hell of a lot better than what they had before.
In other news, some UI improvements are more than welcome, and as a poweruser, I put value on intuitive UI that makes my work more efficient. Enter Katapult-on-steroids - a SEARCH integrated into the start menu that searches the start menu and the program files. Sidebar is also a welcome UI improvement, as is a revised resource-monitor that breaks down diskIO etc. by process.
In yet other news, compatibility suffers. My vista lappie can't connect to the office Wifi network, something between its 802.11x and the radius goes bust. Same config exactly on XP works like charm.
Still, I run a LOT of stuff on it, including a cygwin environment, retro DOS games, productivity software etc, and this would be the only compatibility issue I've encountered. Had I not, I'd be sitting here saying compatibility at all.
Bottom line: Security-wise, big step up. Maturity-wise, probbably still crap, bu
-
Anyone notice the article was about how Vista 'automatically' works around most incompatibilities even for badly written software?
Instead everyone here replying is going from the out of context pull quote or not even reading the article.
Almost everything mentioned in the article talks about what is different in Vista, and then goes on to explain how Vista tries to work around 99% of these incompatibilities - AUTOMATICALLY.
Sure Vista changed a lot in comparison to XP, so the fact that people think Vista isn't different than XP or applications run as well as they is quite remarkable.
Just a short list of major rewritten portions: Video subsystem, Printing subsystem, inter process communications, new intelligent audio stack, network stack, xaml based language from application to screen to printer, etc etc..
In our labs we have very few applications that break under Vista or require Admin Rights to run at all. And this is a number like 10 out of a few thousand we have tested.
Out of the thousands of applications we run and have tested for our environments, half of the ones that did have compatibility problems MS itself released Vista updates to allow the 3rd party applications to run properly, even though they were coded improperly, had bugs, or have no concept of security.
I dare any OS to support as many applications as Vista and not break a few bad applications along the way from the XP upgrade. When facing this challenge, remember Vista has a full BSD subsystem and can run 99% of all the *nix apps in addition to the DOS and Windows base.
XP allowed applications to do stuff MS should never have allowed that created performance and security risks, and Vista finally draws the line in the sand for developers so they have to learn about security and writing applications properly.
For every broken application, I give MS a kudos for finally stopping crap from doing stuff it shouldn't.
PS - Anyone running Windows, run a free anti-virus application, Norton and McAfee cause more performance problems and dig into the OS in areas they should never touch. If your XP or Vista installation on a computer made in the last 5 years takes more than 30secs to boot, you have hardware problems or crap like Norton or McAfee installed.