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?"
You mean like the muppet who wrote this article?
I picked up Vista because i'm an upgrade whore, and after running it for a month or so, I'm generally disappointed. I gained some flashy visual effects (my Macbook is still prettier) but I'm really sick of all the incompatibilities. I'd tend to blame the 3rd parties, but hell; even Visual Studio 2005 had issues that were only recently fixed. I'm still waiting for my logitech keyboard app to stop tanking on bootup (new drivers due end of April? WTF?).
Basically I'm using it now as a media center host for my 360... which media center 2005 was doing just fine. I think this whole experience is just pushing me farther towards dumping windows altogether when I'm at home.
Jeremy
Exactly, don't buy Vista at all, and maybe it'll send the message to Microsoft that this is not what people want in an operating system. Maybe now they're trying to force people off Windows 2000 and XP, but they may have to provide longer support if enough people send the message that they're not going to buy the new product. Will MS really only support 10-25% of their customers and leave the rest in the cold if it came to that?
Twinstiq, game news
- Why not just block the apps that rely on undocumented behavior?
The purist in me would love to take the Linux route and force anybody doing weird stuff to fix their software, but in the long run, Microsoft is a business and their customers want compatibility with shitty software. Reading Raymond Chen's stuff changed my views on Windows backwards compatibility 100%.Gag. I have two boxes I run XP on (dual boot with Linux) and that's as far as it is ever going to get. I'm off the Microsoft treadmill and doubt I will ever get back on. I can do everything I need to do under XP or Linux - with more and more that I can do under Linux all the time. I don't think I've booted into Windows in a couple of months now - literally.
Adios, Microsoft.
I installed Vista alongside XP thinking I'd stay with XP a while yet, but I have not booted XP once since bringing up Vista. Vista application compability wasn't as bad as I'd been lead to believe. Sure I had to scratch my head a bit to get Pixel Shaders working in Media Player Classic (I used them to correct some corrupt videos I have), and some games needed a few XP files from the System32 directory, but the only piece of software I've yet to get running is 3D Mark 99 Max.
This reminds me a little about the Windows 2000 switchover. There was a lot of talk about compatibility issues with various games and apps, but the only thing that affected me was the wonky Sound Blaster Live drivers. Come to think of it, Vista actually supports all my hardware, although I had to slack my memory timings bellow specs. Tip, if you get a BSOD with Win32.sys as the culprit then run memtest86, hell run memtest86 anyway.
Yes, this is the perfect chance for wine to become mainstream and pick up loads of developers to hack those rare apps into working.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I tried Vista so I could get my own opinion of it (as a Linux and xp fan). Tbh, I found it cumbersome even with aero off although I am pointing my fingers at the nvidia drivers, I like to play football manager in a window and that was slower then under wine! but wait for it... it does allow me to play Dungeon Keeper II!! I have not been able to play that since I switched from 2000 years ago. I have tried under everything including vmware to no avail, for this reason alone vista will stay on my hard drive. I don't think vista is as uncompatible as people think, hell once I have the time I plan on trying some of my old games and see what works! Maquis196
That simply isn't true.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
My son's computer was set so that his login was a "Limited" user. Lots of pre-2002 (i.e. written for Win9x, therefore pre user account level and permissions,) games had major issues. They insisted on running as an Administrator. Which meant either changing his login to Administrator (not likely,) or me coming in and typing in my password every time he wanted to run Microsoft's own "Midtown Madness".
Vista, on the other hand, appears to let old games work just fine on a Limited account. Obviously, REALLY old games don't work at all, but Win98-era games work just fine again.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
FTA
"In the end, though, you should seriously consider moving to software virtualization during your Vista migration. Software virtualization allows you to package applications once and only once to deploy them to your PCs. Virtualized applications do not touch the operating system so your systems stay pristine at all times."
If the problems that Vista faces; I am not sure why they didn't take a play from Apples book (no pun intended). They should have:
1) Designed the OS from scratch.
2) Provided a virtualized version of an older system like XP. Something that Apple did when OS X was released. I believe that the virtual environment was running something like version 9.
They wouldn't have these compatibility issues and would have potentially built a more robust / secure OS. Also, it would have given all the application programmers the ability to port over their programs in the interim. It would have been a win win situation. Apps would be available for the new OS; and you would have a new "potentially" feature rich OS ready for deployment.
Personally, I would have liked to see their prototype OS "Singular" come to fruition.
If MS stops XP sales and forces a Vista change over then just waiting for other muppets to sort things is not a workable strategy.
These incompatabilities run deep. Even some Microsoft stuff does not work with Vista. eg. Platform Builder (used for Windows CE development) is XP only.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
First we bought a low-end Everex which was perfectly sufficient for email, IM, web browsing, and accounting software. Vista kept the processor at 80% on average, at idle. I installed XP and it was just fine, but we couldn't get XP drivers for the wifi adapter. Apparently Vista has a few high-demand services that you can disable to work around the problem, but you lose various features as a result.
So we returned that model for an Acer, and it handles Vista nicely. Sims 2 works, Aero works, it's all very pretty. Turns out Peachtree 2005 doesn't work, though, and 2005 is the only version my girlfriend can use for her accounting class. She's still using her old laptop, which this was supposed to replace, for the rest of the semester!
You know, it's a funny thing. With a linux box, the first thing you do is install everything and tweak it till it purrs like a kitten. With every windows box though, including the new laptop I bought pre-loaded with vista, I literally spend hours uninstalling programs and disabling pretty much everything.
Makes you think: One hour perfecting a linux install... versus nine hours hacking (think machete) away at vista (in the hope that it will take less than five minutes to boot up).
I fix Windows PCs for a living, and I run my company on QuickBooks 2006. When Vista came out, I stuck a new drive in my main laptop, built it out with Vista Ultimate, and installed all the applications I need... including QuickBooks. QB worked fine, but I unfortunately failed to disable its Automatic Update feature.
About a month later, QuickBooks downloaded an update that included this splash screen, with its dire warnings about application incompatibility and system instability.
I resent the fact that Intuit is trying to frighten QuickBooks users into upgrading, and I will never buy any of their products again... even if I'm forced to keep my books in, um, actual books. I also turned off Automatic Updates, because I'm afraid Intuit will deliberately destabilize the software if they don't sell enough copies of the 2007 & 2008 versions.
"Microsoft Vista. The WOW is NOW. The Sorrow is Tomorrow!" - seen on whiteboard in a Microsoft office...
Quite a few bis are not in the kernel. Microsoft has a layered system. Many components including DRM are at different layers. Microsoft tried to seperate a great deal of code in Vista to improve stability and security.
Most people believe there is just too much compatibility cruft in Windows. However, OS/2 and POSIX modules were removed at XP SP2 or for Vista. Search the MS KB and you can find the relevant articles. 64bit Vista will not run 16bit code. Slowly some of it is moving out of the way.
Microsoft's problem now is that they ignore home users and focus on the enterprise market. Before when we had 9x, that tree was dedicated to consumers needs. Now, we just have one product which has some features disabled depending on your place in the market. Microsoft hasn't taken the customization far enough for each demographic. Windows is no longer good for gaming and it is very slow to use the GUI so productivity is down for business too. Navigating the new start menu feels much slower. Cancel/Allow is another slowdown.
You can pick many holes in windows, but the NT kernel is not one of them. Microsoft has a rather new kernel compared ot OS X, good portions of the BSD kernels, the linux kernel, etc.
There was a time when I would have said KDE had usability problems. It tried to be windows, but it was not. Now, I think KDE is easier to "upgrade to" than Vista for an XP or Windows 2000 user. Its sadly more similar to what they are used to. Of course, I'm making the same mistake that Microsoft, Apple and a whole slew of others have made with MidnightBSD. My OS is similar but different to what some users are used to. (NEXTSTEPish but not) Of course NEXTSTEP users have seen the apple butcher job with OS X so its not so shocking at this point. I like OS X, but its not NEXTSTEP anymore.
Microsoft needs to get back in touch with their customers before they do anything. An OS redesign may or may not be the answer. Certainly, they need to fix it or move on.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
From a business prospective there is zero reason to plan any moves to Vista in the near future. What gains will they get? NONE.
You mis-use that word. Vista has a modest slew of bits and pieces that really are worthwhile. When I was using the beta, I went through a two-week period when every tech problem I ran into immediately made me think of a vista feature that would make it easier.
Vista really does do things that Windows did not do previously -- if it didn't, there wouldn't be the incompatibilities that are so rampant. Saying that there is NO benefit is just plain old FUD, and lets a proprietary-software shill get the client to dismiss OSS out of hand.
Windows ME? Even the people I knew who couldn't know how bad it was knew how bad it was. It didn't take a rocket scientist. From there you devolve into pirate hysteria/name-calling and finish with the flourish on your one provided reason for the upgrade (wow, thank GOD MS provided encryption...I don't know what I would have...).
I'm all for counter-points. I brought the first Vista system into our workplace. I disabled UAC and aside from some of the old/trollish employees not liking it (I did make them use it, they just like to complain) its been pretty good. Lots of non-supported software has worked just as I'd have expected it to. The UI isn't really impressing me, but this is Microsoft and that kind of design isn't something they are known for.
A good reason to have upgraded to it? Not yet. Bitlocker could be done just as well or better with any number of applications. Maybe after the large scale public beta ends at SP1 they have enough quirks worked out that people will start discovering some of the benifits. Maybe not. But no matter how you dice it, right now the biggest benefit to Vista is Microsoft's dominance and decision to push this operating system so aggressively.
In the future please don't formulate arguments based on the assumption someone doesn't like something because their pirates. We hear more then enough of that kind of corporate dribble already. A lot of people won't like X for a lot of legitimate reasons. Claiming Y randomly doesn't provide a logical argument. Just hyperbole.
Have a great Sunday. Just had to speak my piece.
Quack, quack.
Wow. Under 40ms. That's almost not totally unusable.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
I was one of those suckers that went and upgraded to Vista Ultimate. One small thing was not mentioned however. Unlike Shakespeare's, "A rose by any other name...". Vista is not vista. Software that is "vista" ready is most likely vista 32 ready NOT 64bit ready. I upgraded to the 64bit version. In fact, I purchased an alienware AMD64x2 laptop a YEAR ago in anticipation of this 64 bit OS. Now I have an inoperable wireless card, a Digital Video converter than is inoperable until march... mmm april .... mmm who knows when the drivers will be released, 32bit apps that are broken and 64 bit apps that crash. Vista is not vista. So, if I'm not mistaken M$ is now got: XPHome, XPPro, XPPro64, vistaHomeBasic32, VistaBusiness32, VistahomePremium32, VistaEnterprise32, vistaHomeBasic64, VistaBusiness64, VistahomePremium64, VistaEnterprise64 + legacy and only real support for the Vista32 OS versions. Vista ready software? which version? This has got to be one of the most bungled launches I've seen from M$. Sure you expect bugs and drivers to lag a little but the "automatic" updates.... Security fixes! Not drivers or optimizers. Please, please please! make my life simpler not more confusing! Sometimes "choice" is not good. sometimes different names and logos are better when dealing with 32 vs. 64 bit OS. The name "Vista" is essentially meaningless. Pure marketing. Software Vista ready? Hah! Maybe M$ should have marketed the new OS as Macular degeneration, an OS for the ages.
Rant? No. Frustration? Yes
DNA, the splice of life.