Slashdot Mirror
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."
Does Vista really need anti-virus software anyway?
People are quick to slam Microsoft again here. For those reading TFKBA, most of the apps are either:
In conclusion, move along, nothing to see here.
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."
Why are we still even talking about Vista? Is anybody really using Vista these days? Governments and Organizations have spoken out against Vista, Office 2007 and it lives in infamy everywhere else. Even Microsoft's Eric Traut has somewhat spoken out against Vista and Windows in general.
Everywhere I go people say I'll stick to XP for as long as I can, even in the Enterprise. These type of /. submissions are getting really old really fast since they all repeat the same message: stay the hell away from Vista.
Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive towards its customers, in my opinion.
Customers are being pushed toward buying Windows Vista, even though it is clearly not a finished product, and maybe even not a desirable product.
If a company needs to buy 1,000 new computers, it is placed in a terrible position. Will it buy Windows XP, a product that Bill Gates, software's Dr. Death, has declared is Mainstream Support Retired on 4/14/2009? If it does, it will be forced to pay extra when Microsoft desides to stop supporting Windows XP. And every Microsoft customer needs official support because of the huge, huge number of vulnerabilities that are found in Microsoft products.
Operating systems don't naturally have so many vulnerabilities. Users of Mac computers don't even bother to run anti-spyware and anti-virus software because they don't have problems. Large numbers of vulnerabilities are a built-in shortcoming of Microsoft products; apparently Microsoft doesn't let its programmers finish their work. Huge numbers of vulnerabilities force an unnatural connection with the supplier; the user is dependent on the supplier for patches; that creates opportunities for control. Vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft because people are forced to "upgrade".
When Windows XP was first released, it was very, very buggy. Windows XP became relatively usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of SP2. Service Pack 2 for XP fixed more than 330 problems, if I remember correctly, and some of those were not documented.
We have seen numerous reasons to believe that Windows Vista will also be full of hassles at least until Vista SP2.
Microsoft's customers were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with "DLL Hell" and the "Blue Screen of Death". Customers had to endure 3 bad years with Windows XP pre-SP2. Since the release of SP2, there have been only 3 relatively good years with Windows XP, and now Microsoft is arranging pressure to have bad years again.
That's ugly in my opinion, and I'm only one of many who think that way. This is all being done by billionaires who want nothing more than more money; that's sick.
Remember, Microsoft managers are sinking the company over the long term to get short-term profit.
With operating systems, there is lock-in. Linux is not an easy option because re-writing software and re-training is too expensive in most cases. But once a reasonable alternative is available, Microsoft will have difficulty finding customers, it seems to me.
It's fine if Microsoft introduces a new product. But there should not be pressure to buy the new product until it is stable. The "new" OS product should not be designed to require users to buy new hardware, as it seems is true with Windows Vista. Remember that Microsoft serves the system builders, who want everyone to need more hardware; the final customer can be dis-regarded and dis-repected because of OS lock-in.
One of the biggest and most respected IT magazines is rejecting Windows Vista: Save Windows XP. Quote: "More than 75,000 people have signed InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition in the three weeks since it was launched - many with passionate, often emotional pleas to not be forced to make a change."
The project I'm really keeping an eye on right now is ReactOS. http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html It's still alpha right now, but they're expecting to hit beta later this year. The initial beta release is supposed to be around 70% Windows compatible (realistically most things will work even then because the last 30% is stuff that isn't used that much). They're aiming for 100% compatibility of course...probably shortly before 1.0. Once that hits there will be a Windows alternative with absolutely 0 Microsoft code. It has the potential to make them irrelevant.
Not if the functionality being used by said software was insecure or bugged to begin with.
Now, if the AV companies legitimately do NOT have enough time before SP1 is pushed to the public, then I could see getting up in arms.
Otherwise, isnt this just common sense? Fix whats insecure and broken, advise the third parties of the changes, then release after a suitable dev delay?
Ice Cream has no bones.
MS should try, yes, but sometimes the existing software just has bugs (i.e. violates what the API says you should do). It previously worked if the OS had matching bugs that made it work.
Kinda like how people who write web pages by testing with IE and seeing it broken in Firefox etc. because the app they tested with wasn't quite obeying the standards, really...
Tell the company you bought your software from to take a leap; they agreed to the blocking. Or you could, you know, update your security software to the latest, compatible version through the links helpfully provided by Microsoft. Seems like common sense, keeping your security software up to date...
My god, that is the most insane strawman argument I have ever seen. You spent the latter two out of those three paragraphs painting a fantasy scenario, then drawing a hugely hyperbolic analogy, and then concluding, based on your fantasy scenario, that this was extortion.
You could have read the article. AV vendors were locked out of the kernel with Vista, for security reasons, which are valid for all Operating Systems and not smoke-up-the-ass reasons. After complaints, SP1 *adds* a more secure API support so the AV vendors can screw with the kernel again (more carefully). This is Microsoft bending to the AV vendors' collective will. Necessarily, this means AV vendors have to change their support. So they do, and consent to this because this is precisely what they asked for.
AV vendors claiming antitrust? I find that ironic, considering their industry is based solely around the insecurity of Windows. It is in Microsofts and every users best interest for Windows to be made bullet proof, but then the AV vendors would sue for more antitrust violations. It is an industry that shouldn't even exist.