Vista SP1 Is Even Less Compatible

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Microsoft is now saying that Vista SP1 disables some 3rd party applications. The KB article on SP1 incompatibility states: 'For reliability reasons, Microsoft blocks these programs from starting after you install Windows Vista SP1.' It does link to several vendor support pages with updates or workarounds. Unfortunately, at least one of the suggestions consists of merely disabling part of the program, which could leave you with half an anti-virus solution."

Comments

Re:Vista again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of major companies are currently planning their migrations to Vista. I do consulting and integration work for mostly Fortune 500 companies, and a large number of them are making their plans for post SP1.

Slashdot is NOT a very good indicator of industry trends.

Re:It's normal

[cheater512]

Would #1 be because there is no public hooks for antivirus programs to use?
There of course would be private ones for Microsoft's products.

Good

[ceeam]

Windows must die.

"backwards compitability" IS the Windows franchis

[tomhudson]

You know, I'm honestly really tired of seeing this same lame ass rant over and over again in every single MS article. Kudos to you at least for keeping it relatively short. This happens EVERY SINGLE TIME Microsoft releases an new OS. They can't win, even if they DID write the best software known to man, and you know why? Legacy compatibility. You guys bitch when it doesn't work with your old shit and if it DOES work with your old shit, you bitch because the OS is bloated and runs like shit. There's a price for compatibility and if you think you have the easy and simple solution, you're probably wrong.

If Microsoft drops backwards compatibility, there's no reason for people to use Microsoft products. If you're going to have to switch all your software anyway, why not switch to linux or osx?

In other words, Microsoft has no choice - they have to continue to produce the same crappy software, because that is what their franchise is based on. Breaking backwards compatibility breaks the only reason people continue to use Windows - because their existing software works.

Most of the people who use Windows hate their computers. Ask how many of them would be happy to contribute to a fund to pay the legal fees of whoever takes out Redmond ... among Windows users, Gates is more hated than Hillary.

Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there?

[LLKrisJ]

So you're supposed to go online with your antivirus, which was disabled by Vista update, so that you can download a fix for your now not working antivirus so you can be protected from viruses ...

Isn't the whole idea of having a running antivirus so that you can go safely online and download sh*t? Isn't the whole idea of running antivirus software that you keep it up-to-date??? This type of software gets updates for a reason. If yours breaks because of SP1 then you are clearly not running the latest version so your computer will be unsafe to begin with... So it's your own damn fault. Don't come moaning.

I really don't understand. First they slag off MS for trying to hard to be backward compatible, thus making no real fundamental security improvements. Now when they make an effort to fundamentally change things they get slagged again for breaking some deprecated software which shouldn't be running anymore to begin with...

Re:AntiTrust concerns?

[RobertM1968]

I know this is /., but please RTFA.

All the vendors mentioned (ironically, with the exception of Novell) already have fixes/workarounds either ready or in progress.

I kind of doubt there are any antitrust implications when MS contacts the affected vendors in advance. TFA even notes that "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors."

So, you see no antitrust implications when the vendors already had to modify code just to get it to work on Vista's initial release (with much of the pertinent data not being given to them till the last minute, meaning no time to update CDs... like Symantec who had to put files online for tech shops and customers to download while they changed their RTMs to match due to lack of time), followed by a SP that disables their software - yet again - leaving only MS as the working alternative, with again too little time to have updates available to end users except for too late after the fact?

That to me smells of anti-trust. As for "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors." - what consent does it imply? "We're changing things... too bad... you have to modify your code again if you want it to work - it's either that, or your product wont run on Vista SP1. OK?" - "Uh... OK... since our choices are (a) it wont work and we lose our customer base or (b) we modify the code."

If you call that consent... c'mon. It's like a thief with a gun telling you "I'll shoot you if you don't give me all the money in your pockets... but I'd settle for half of it and just beat you up a bit... do you consent to me just beating you up a bit for half the money in your pockets?" - "Ummm... sure" - the only things they consented to was being stuck without any choice requiring them update their software - or it wouldnt work. Consent != extortion... and this borders on extortion.

Re:Vista again?

[Tacvek]

All I know, is that I have not used Vista for even 24 hours total, and I've had to manually kill Explorer.exe and restart it a good 3 or more times (it hangs), not to mention at least 3-hard reboots (the hold the power button to turn it off kind). From that alone I dislike it very very much. My usage methods already tend to trigger nearly every posssible bug that hurts the stability of XP, and the evidence so far seems to be that Vista have more of those bugs. That literally makes Vista completely unusable to me.