Neowin.net - Vista Compatibility: What Does Microsoft Owe Us?

Vista Compatibility: What Does Microsoft Owe Us?

Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 08 September 2006 - 17:37 · 30 comments & 11744 views

Opinion: What is the real compatibility picture for Windows Vista? It's hard to tell with no public sighting of a compatibility list. Microsoft is pushing virtualization—but the acceptance of that approach remains to be seen. Still, some say Microsoft and even Apple could be doing a better job on the downward compatibility front.

Despite the rosy outlook sounded by Windows Vista true believers, the compatibility picture for Vista is blurry at best. How Microsoft's next-generation operating system will deal with the data and apps of previous generations must be near the top of the transition checklist for IT managers. At the same time, other voices with long experience in the industry ask if the Vista rollout really has to be done this way? They predict that the day may be coming when customers stand up and yell that they're not going to take this anymore.

View: The full story

News source: eWeek

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

(6 replies) #1 Posted by markjensen on 08 Sep 2006 - 18:18: It's their OS. They don't owe the users anything.

People will buy it.

For the few apps that have problems, running in a virtualized environment will suffice.

#2 Posted by Kushan on 08 Sep 2006 - 18:59: Unfortunately this is always going to be a problem with new OS releases. I think Microsoft has done quite well so far, with only a handful of applications not working correctly on XP and most of those are like 10 years old anyway.
64bit is a completely different kettle of fish, though and it seems that since no 32bit drivers and no 16bit applications will work on a 64bit system, plus with the advent of the WDM driver model, that Microsoft is pushing for a clean slate and forcing manufacturers to produce better drivers. This may mean less compatibility in the short term, but at least in the long term things will be much better for the consumer.

When it comes down to it, I'm not expecting Vista to run all of my applications for one reason or another, but as long as compatibility is pretty high (90-95%) then I wont complain, especially if it means a much more stable system.

#3 Posted by Mike Frett on 08 Sep 2006 - 19:12: I'm not expecting Vista to run ANY of my apps, being they are all old. So I was thinking, instead of being locked in to Windows, now would be my chance to switch to a different OS being that I would have to have different apps.

So that's the way I look at it. If Vista will not run any of your apps and you've been looking to get away from Windows, nows your chance. Not being mean, just saying to look at this as a possible crossroad.

(1 reply) #4 Posted by neufuse on 08 Sep 2006 - 20:20: Did Apple owe us anything in the switch from OS9 to OSX? No, so why should Microsoft? MS maintained a much higher legacy support rate then Apple did, even with the size differences... OS9 to OSX it was buy new apps or get out (Classic OS9 support doesnt count as it was not part of the OSX system except for the fact you could still run it, you had to run a seperate OS to get the apps) in Vista, the apps still just run... so I dont see a point to this article... If MS ditched windows and switched OS's totaly like Apple did then we'd have a reason to say stuff... which I am hoping MS will so sometime soon! Windows needs a ground up rewrite with new ideas, get rid of all the legacy stuff, start from scratch fresh, write 2 OS's at the same time, the current windows, and start work on a new windows so in 10 years we will have a brand new system

(1 reply) #5 Posted by rev23dev on 08 Sep 2006 - 20:30: my company won't be upgrading anytime soon. delphi 6 and starteam are having all sorts of issues, and that's our primary development environment.

we're moving to c# and .net, but our app is so large it will take years before we get out of delphi completely.

#6 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 08 Sep 2006 - 21:15: They have better get it right. I work with people who need to use a 16-bit Windows app for their job that was never updated by the developer even though it still exists. Yet they will be getting Vista computers next year. I'll have to figure it out.

I also need to get a bunch of old Windows games, about 10-7 years old, running, they've had problems in Windows XP.

#7 Posted by i3iz on 08 Sep 2006 - 22:14: They owe us a version that doesnt have legacy support. so those of us who upgrade regularly dont have to pay extra for a slower OS. For those companies using programs that are 50 years old and your whole company relies on it? why not invent a new version and sell it for lots of money?

OS X pretty much dumped legacy support, gave it to users via "Classic." Those that didn't want it to bog them and didn't need it, just didnt install it, or never started it up. the people that needed Quark 4 or Adobe Streamline just ran it in classic. Well now, Adobe Illustrator has livetrace and Quark 7 is out and it is leaps and bounds more stable and usable than quark 5 which is the main reason most print shops didnt embrace OS X like they could have.

All this to say...M$!!!! attention!!! Copy Apple with this one. Dump the legacy support. or atleast make it a feature that needs to be installed/activated/purchased...whatever.

(1 reply) #8 Posted by thenay on 08 Sep 2006 - 22:41: I believe with XP there was a site done by MS that had the compatibility listings.
Where is it for Vista?

(1 reply) #9 Posted by Shadrack on 08 Sep 2006 - 23:45: I say scrap compatibility for a secure environment for future softwares. I've heard that most of the security flaws in XP are due to all the code Microsoft had to tweak just to get very specific software packages to work.

Run XP in a Virtual Machine for that legacy app that just won't work? Well..its a better option then having 2 computers. I have to run Win 98 in a virtual machine for some old apps anyway.

#10 Posted by danj205 on 09 Sep 2006 - 02:13: Well, I just had Windows Vista tell me that a program I was about to install had problems reported, and if I wanted to find any solutions. While it did not find any, it said that it will keep a look out for them in the future.

Microsoft has done really well for legacy support. Just look at XP, we all know that a lot of programs made for 9x did not work on NT. But Microsoft was able to do it.

I have had problems with some programs, however it is mainly because they are trying to access the Program Files folder, which Vista denies them. Unfortunately there is no error message, and sometimes the programs crash.

We always have to go through a bit of time for apps to transition over to the new OS. Have we forgotten that, considering the last major Windows change was back in 2001?

#11 Posted by strekship on 09 Sep 2006 - 02:18: Virtualization is the best way to go for compatability from now on. No more of this 10 year old code still built into the kernal.

#12 Posted by CrisCr0ss on 09 Sep 2006 - 03:29: The best feature would be automatic Driver updates. That will get rid of the hassle and solve many tech issues. As well as make the end user (noob) happy.

(1 reply) #13 Posted by CHOWman on 09 Sep 2006 - 03:53: If it doesn't run for you, then switch to Apple. Up to you.

(1 reply) #14 Posted by Croquant on 09 Sep 2006 - 04:44: How about shipping a product that is not a total pile of crap, Microsoft? That would be nice, for a change.

(1 reply) #15 Posted by haveblue128 on 09 Sep 2006 - 04:56: [size=1][size=4]
MS owes the market-bigtime. Bill Gates will no longer be the billonare college-drop-out and monster success he is today unless Microsoft retains the majority of the 90% of the OS market it owns, today. If you look back at each Windows release, more time has gone by between each version. Where is the creativity-where is the magic? Where is the Microsoft of old?

Same thing goes for Office. The folks in Redmond are having a mid-life crisis to be sure. While the money they have made over the past few decades is remarkable, that financial engine needs an oil transplant. They have streched XP out for nearly 10 years and the market is now restless. While Office has changed briskly, the changes has been minimal.

In short-MS has to hit the ball out of the park on both the OS and Office to maintain their market primacy. If either are so-so performers, Microsoft can expect a future of being just another IT firm trying to make ends meet.

#16 Posted by Izlude on 09 Sep 2006 - 06:51: Vista runs all my favorite goodies and at double time. Yes! I'm obviously going to run it as my primary when it's on the shelves. (yarrr)

Curiously though, how many of you think you're going to scrounge the net for 2K7 and try to compare it to Vista, like we did with 2K3 and XP?

#17 Posted by Beastage on 09 Sep 2006 - 07:36: compatibility was always a word that spelled problem for me

on one side, you want to have new and old together.
on other side you want new and better new to come out for you.

Remember when Apple kicked their past behind with OS X? Microsoft got a very hard work to do, they need to keep old codes and pieces of software so people don't start crying over compatibility .

What MS should realize is that they too, especially after Vista, can offer a complete change that will have no compatibility with the old but will bring a much better new.

Vista should be the last compatibility o/s from MS, people who need their old stuff can just stick with XP or even Vista
depending on their software.

Last edited by Beastage on 09 Sep 2006 - 09:02

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top