Windows Vista unreadiness revealed

Microsoft has finally outlined the extent to which Windows Vista was unfit for the marketplace when it launched six months ago. A mere 650 applications were certified for Vista when it launched, compared to 2,000 now. Seventy "critical" enterprise applications from corporate mainstays such as Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, McAfee, Citrix Systems, Oracle, SAP and IBM are "being resolved daily."

On hardware, 600,000 devices have been certified in the six months since launch, now making Windows Vista compatible with 2.1 million devices. The numbers were offered by chief operating officer Kevin Turner, who tried to rally Wall Street analysts to the Microsoft flag of software - including Windows Vista - plus services.

View: The full story
News source: The Reg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Mozilla, Thunderbird Facing Trial Separation

Next Story

AMD silences quad-core critics

58 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't think it is MS's fault that lazy developers did not their homework in time (creative, Nvidia and ATI) but IT IS MS's fault that Vista is slow and I mean slow at moving files and reading to the hard drive. with a fast Sata 250 hard drive, 4 gigis of meme, a core2duo 6600 and a P35 motherboard Vista takes ages not only to move files within the same hard drive, but to even draw the icons when I open a folder...there are serious issues with Vista and they should not be ignored....

Yeah it's a growing concern, nothing darn works... I have a laptop perfectly capable of running Windows Vista but the manufacturers of the laptop refused to update their software for applications and hardware. Mainly because Micosoft wants the companies to pay up a lump sum for the "VISTA DIGITAL SIGNATURE" and they will not pay. Therefore, they will not uodate their software, meanwhile making the EU very upset and hacked off.

I've used it daily since March on a Dell E1505 with 2 gig ram, 80 gig SATA HD, X1500 video card. Absolutely NO
problems. I use it 4-5 times a day. 99% of the time with firefox. I remote into the company server 1-2 times
a day, photoshop, a couple of proprietary applications, which didn't want to work were EASILY fixed by running them
in "XP mode".
I'm actually liking Vista better than XP on the laptop, since the prefetch works a lot better. Who cares that it caches
all that ram. THAT IS WHAT IT'S FOR. My apps, including the pro version of acrobat & photoshop launch MUCH faster.
I LOVE the sleep mode. I can leave the laptop in sleep, instead of hibernation and resume instantly, using 75% screen brightness, and go though the day on the battery.
Other than the high system resources & PRICE, I think it is a good application, and with SP1 due out at the end of the
year, should only get better.
Would I have bought it if I were not to get it free for work? No, too expensive
If I were getting a new computer, with adequate system resources, I'd go with Vista.
I think "some" are just bitching because they lack the system to adequately run Vista properly.

I just never get tires of topics like this (which should give you an idea of the importance of this OS).
Fact is, Microsoft did very much rush Vista. It is an undeniable fact that vista needed more time in the lab in order for it to be feature-complete. That didn't happen and we all know the result.
Fortunaly, Vista is based on a solid Kernel, thus stability isn't compromised (until you count buggy drivers in).

I am an apple fan, in the sense that I enjoy their products and if they sell something I like I buy from them. And when i compare Vista development to Leopard dev. I find it interesting that MS, with the resources it has access to, took so much time to produce an OS that looks nothing like what was originally planned. Not only that, but many features (including key ones) were just stripped out. This tells me that management in Ms needs to take a good look inside (and i wouldn't mind it if ballmer is fired.... the guy is just a clown and a bad manager)
Please don't take my comment as an endorsment of apple, it is only a critique of they way MS managed Vista.
I don't believe you should have an amazing computer to be able to enjoy your Operating system! Obviously, Microsoft disgrees with me and is where I believe the whole problem starts.

Amazing computer? My laptop in power saveing mode CPU clocked to 800MHz(from 2GHz) and FSB down to 400MHz(from 800) and Vista still RUNS SMOOTH. Amazing computer? I don't think so but I do have 2GB of ram maybe that's the key....

kouhii00 said,
Amazing computer? My laptop in power saveing mode CPU clocked to 800MHz(from 2GHz) and FSB down to 400MHz(from 800) and Vista still RUNS SMOOTH. Amazing computer? I don't think so but I do have 2GB of ram maybe that's the key....

Mghz this, mghz that . . . you hit the nail on the head!

RAM is a major factor in performance. It can make a world of difference.

I think they did a good job releasing it with little support for devices and applications. Sure it definitely made it an OS that you may not want to run as a primary THE DAY IT DROPPED...but i'm glad they did because it pushed the third party to get off their ass and start updating their drivers/software for the new generation. Without that push companies start to get set in their ways and there aren't many updates and new features, etc... to look forward too. It just becomes that same old same old...It's not like it was a HUGGGGEEEEE difference in the coding they had to change...so don't tell me they can't do it. It also let the smaller 3rd party programs shine as to which ones actually give a damn about the future of technology and whats going on.

Check out Symantec (Norton) for example....half their products won't run on vista that are worth anything. But they claim to be one of the top dogs of the application/program world. BAH!

And people who wanna bitch about the memory it uses...one DEAL WITH IT! Back in the day, if you were into computers for that long, 16mb of ram was THE ****! Then bigger, better programs, applications, drivers, OS, etc.. come out and the need grows. Just like it was said...i've read of people having 4gb+ of RAM...and bitching about how it's used. For one...WTF do you need 4gb of RAM for unless you do some serious computing which half the people on this site don't, at least for the need of such a large amount of RAM. I have 2gb...so let the OS use it...that's what i paid my money for. I have to say that even though it seems that Vista "uses" more memory...does a hell of a lot better job at managing it's uses then XP did.

Stop bashing, stop the bull****, and learn that things change...it's a part of life in every aspect. But then again so is the fact that there is always going to be the uptight, ******* hater who has nothing better to do then critic things they have no CLUE about....so with that said...hate on, but realize you look like an idiot doing it !

Amen, echo! I built my first system with 1 gigabyte of onboard RAM *seven years ago* (back in 2000, when Socket 370 was coming into vogue). I actually started recommending that much even then (with the various Pentium IIIs and early Athlons) for two rather understandable reasons: first off, RAM was (even then) cheap; second, the easiest way to improve OS performance (any OS, from NT 4.x, which was still the business OS of choice, to Windows 2000, which was just being launched, to even Windows ME, (which was being pushed by Microsoft for home use, but which I had avoided and refused to recommend; instead, I actually recommended Windows 2000 Professional) improves when given more RAM to use). In fact, whenever I see a system with less than a gigabyte of RAM today (regardless of what OS they are running), I absolutely *cringe*. I still tell people today that adding memory is the fastest way to improve performance in their OS of choice. Though I've changed processors twice since that first 1 GB system back in 2000, I didn't move north of that 1 GB of system memory until (surprisingly) this year....and that's despite having been running Vista in either beta or released form for *over* a year.

Microsoft has finally outlined the extent to which Windows Vista was unfit for the marketplace when it launched six months ago. A mere 650 applications were certified for Vista when it launched, compared to 2,000 now. Seventy "critical" enterprise applications from corporate mainstays such as Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, McAfee, Citrix Systems, Oracle, SAP and IBM are "being resolved daily."

Okay...ISVs are having to update their software...and this means Vista was unfit? If it was Vista that was unfit we'd see a bunch of patches coming out for Vista. There have been a few, but the majority of the issues that are '"being resolved daily"' are the ISVs issues, not Vista's!!

Sounds more like a problem of the marketplace being unfit for Vista to me...

If Vista is such a good clean and reliable OS why does it have such a huge memory footprint of about 580 Meg.

Surely they could have turned a lot of crap off in the autoruns to make it faster and more streamlined.

Plus what about all the added spyware, there are about 20 different processes in which Vista can relay information about you to Microsoft.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-abou...oft-58752.shtml

VIVA XP!! DOWN WITH "VISTA"!!!

B0GiE said,
If Vista is such a good clean and reliable OS why does it have such a huge memory footprint of about 580 Meg.

Surely they could have turned a lot of crap off in the autoruns to make it faster and more streamlined.

Plus what about all the added spyware, there are about 20 different processes in which Vista can relay information about you to Microsoft.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-abou...oft-58752.shtml

VIVA XP!! DOWN WITH "****sTA"!!!

Oh, *clap*, the fact you post a article from slashdot means you really have no idea what's going on. Plus the fact that's pretty old news, and as with most MS bits on /. blown out of proportion by all the haters on that site. Not really news at all but just typical bashing.

The fact Vista uses more memory has been talked about to death since the RC days. Yet people with 2GB+ ram still bitch when Vista uses 800MB of it. I really don't understand why you buy so much, then turn around and bitch when your software uses it when it's free.

Vista has a new memory manager, I beleave this was already talked about in great detail, the memory manager will use ram when it's free to preload bits through superfetch so apps open and run faster from boot. That's why it's using more memory, which is what it should do when you're not using it yourself. When you do need more, it will dump things to the pagefile, and give you the memory back. Unlike XP which will dump things to pagefile after a bit of idle time, thus when you come back to your PC, it's slow until everything gets moved back into RAM. I notice this all the time because I have my PC on 24/7 with apps running. And I'm sure many others have. While people have said time and again with Vista, after leaving it for a few hours and coming back, the system is responsive right from the start like you never left.

The memory argument is overdone and people who bring it up don't really know whats going on IMO. If you want to compare things, I read that OSX on the iPhone uses 700MB of memory, And that's just a damn media phone, not a PC.

GP007 said,

Oh, *clap*, the fact you post a article from slashdot means you really have no idea what's going on. Plus the fact that's pretty old news, and as with most MS bits on /. blown out of proportion by all the haters on that site. Not really news at all but just typical bashing.

The fact Vista uses more memory has been talked about to death since the RC days. Yet people with 2GB+ ram still bitch when Vista uses 800MB of it. I really don't understand why you buy so much, then turn around and bitch when your software uses it when it's free.

Vista has a new memory manager, I beleave this was already talked about in great detail, the memory manager will use ram when it's free to preload bits through superfetch so apps open and run faster from boot. That's why it's using more memory, which is what it should do when you're not using it yourself. When you do need more, it will dump things to the pagefile, and give you the memory back. Unlike XP which will dump things to pagefile after a bit of idle time, thus when you come back to your PC, it's slow until everything gets moved back into RAM. I notice this all the time because I have my PC on 24/7 with apps running. And I'm sure many others have. While people have said time and again with Vista, after leaving it for a few hours and coming back, the system is responsive right from the start like you never left.

The memory argument is overdone and people who bring it up don't really know whats going on IMO. If you want to compare things, I read that OSX on the iPhone uses 700MB of memory, And that's just a damn media phone, not a PC.


Dagnabbit, "GP007" - you stole my thunder! :laugh:

I'm amazed at the number of people who claim that Slashdot is impirically correct on every article - It's the sacred cow of F/OSS and OSDN, but I've pointed out inconsistancies on Windows and Microsoft-related post there since 2002 - and have the "Karma" level to prove it (I just recently moved up from "Terrible" to "Bad").

One final thought: When building, remodeling or just working on a house, do you go to the plumber for information on the Electrical work?

I tryed to use vista for about a year but had to move back to xp when i found out that my bluetooth driver did not work. and by that time i was fedup with with vista because of lack of performace. when playing half-life 2 the game would sometimes slow down to the point when it was not playable anymore.

hughes28105 said,
I tryed to use vista for about a year but had to move back to xp when i found out that my bluetooth driver did not work. and by that time i was fedup with with vista because of lack of performace. when playing half-life 2 the game would sometimes slow down to the point when it was not playable anymore.

About a year? So beta versions then? It didn't get (limited) release till Nov of last year..

How about this idea: GO GET THE REAL THING FROM A STORE and stop basing your understanding of Vista from the Beta 2 release!

(where is a Homer Simpson "D`oh! Smiley when you need one)

Actually, perversely enough, my bluetooth dongle worked perfectly in Vista out-of-the-box yet in XP it wouldn't work properly even with drivers installed.

@ScottKin - You can't really test driver support at a store.

Vista changed the way the OS handles programs in order to make it more secure. This means that a lot of programs need to be changed to conform to these new security features. That's a good thing, everyone! That's why you see the UAC all the time initially. As the 3rd party developers start getting on board with the security, everything will work great.

Microsoft rushed Vista out the door so marketing divisions could keep their artificial deadlines while coders were openly telling them Vista was not ready.

The whole thing about 'vista support' is that even when some company now tells you that their device works in Vista, I've found that 99% of the time, they mean it BARELY works. The Creative Labs drivers don't support WaveRT correctly, the ASIO is broken, same for my Realtek AC97 (NForce4 onboard audio), and my DIGI001, none of my soundcards work with their original ASIO drivers and none of them have WaveRT drivers ready. Same for the NVIDIA drivers, which many many people have had nothing but problems with. I guess some other companies could be better examples, but if Creative Labs, Realtek and NVIDIA are any example, Vista drivers still need alot more time to reach the place they need to be.

hapbt said,
Microsoft rushed Vista out the door so marketing divisions could keep their artificial deadlines while coders were openly telling them Vista was not ready.

The whole thing about 'vista support' is that even when some company now tells you that their device works in Vista, I've found that 99% of the time, they mean it BARELY works. The Creative Labs drivers don't support WaveRT correctly, the ASIO is broken, same for my Realtek AC97 (NForce4 onboard audio), and my DIGI001, none of my soundcards work with their original ASIO drivers and none of them have WaveRT drivers ready. Same for the NVIDIA drivers, which many many people have had nothing but problems with. I guess some other companies could be better examples, but if Creative Labs, Realtek and NVIDIA are any example, Vista drivers still need alot more time to reach the place they need to be.


Microsoft can't be blamed for Creatives problems. Creative Labs has always been slow with their updates. In fact my Auzentech sound card had Vista drivers long before Creative had theirs.

Not to mention Creative Labs always puts out buggy drivers. Constantly I read about the problems they have with their cards, and crackling.

I've also never had any problems with the Nvidia drivers. Even the ones that come with Vista work just fine.

I've also never had any problems with the Nvidia drivers. Even the ones that come with Vista work just fine.

Well a bit more anecdotal rambling for you.. my NForce2 drivers used to work ok out of the box with Vista, but Windows Update suggested there were new drivers available. Putting them on broke and disabled sound, and whenever I was trying to roll back to the previous drivers to fix my sound it would blue screen and reboot the machine.

This was an NForce2 based box that had been running rock solid for 3 years under XP so I knew it wasn't flaky!

That's odd - I have a DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D motherboard with Realtek AC97 audio and it works perfectly. Maybe you automatically used the drivers downloaded from Microsoft. Try using Google to find the audio drivers for Realtek AC97 under Vista and it will work perfectly. It's such a nice feature to be able to change different volume levels for each running application. As far as ASIO drivers - isnt' that the responsibility of Steinberg to get them right and NOT Microsoft's job?

Don't take your frustration with Creative's inneptitude out on Microsoft & Vista - way too much head being generated with very little light.

I'm beginning to think that everyone here on Neowin has to take a class on Software Development, Testing & Product life-cycle to explain to the whiners what Software Development is all about - it would quickly end the similar diatribes to those in this thread.

TC17 said,

Microsoft can't be blamed for Creatives problems. Creative Labs has always been slow with their updates. In fact my Auzentech sound card had Vista drivers long before Creative had theirs.

Not to mention Creative Labs always puts out buggy drivers. Constantly I read about the problems they have with their cards, and crackling.

I've also never had any problems with the Nvidia drivers. Even the ones that come with Vista work just fine.

My post is about WORKING versus WORKING AS ADVERTISED. The low latency WaveRT support is choppy skippy and crappy in low latency situations. This was supposed to be magically fixed in Vista, it is not.
I'm glad your crappy card works in your games and stuff,but that's not at all what I'm talking about.

ClintEastman said,
What a load of old crap! Why is this on the front page of Neowin?

That's a good question... It might have SLIGHTLY been news in January. And I wish the mods would ban news from the Reg and Enq. They're both rags that have nothing better to do than dredge up old crap and make up the new crap...

You haven't noticed? Bashing Vista is the "thing to do" now-a-days.

I've been using Vista for months and the ONLY time I use XP is at work. I've had relatively limited issues with Vista. The only real issues I ever had with it happened during the beta and rc days. There was a faulty driver or two, but that was fixable -- even with some of my "older" hardware, such as my Canon scanner (which was bought back in '05 -- which isn't that old).

Now of course, if I tried running Vista on a computer four years old, I'm going to expect a few issues ... but that's with anything new software. You can't run yesterdays hardware and todays software to work together flawlessly (especially not forever).

Justin- said,
You can't run yesterdays hardware and todays software to work together flawlessly (especially not forever).

Yes, but when running Vista on an E6750 with 2GB of RAM I expect much better performance than it gives. XP is very snappy and responsive but Vista, a supposed "upgrade", runs considerably slower. I gave Vista a try for over a month at launch and again recently with my upgraded computer (mentioned above) and though the OS is great the performance is just unacceptable. I am now back to XP - and, yes, I do own a legitimate copy of Vista so I am annoyed that I have had to go back to XP.

I will wait for SP1 and try again then but even browsing folders Vista drags too much and I've used it on other computers as well to make sure it isn't an issue with my computer specifically. Considering Microsoft is able to utilise dual-core processors and DX9/10 graphics cards it is ridiculous that performance has gone backwards when there has been relatively little change. I notice that Mac users keep mentioning how each version of OSX increases performance and yet after 5yrs development Vista takes us backwards. It's not that Vista bashing in the "in thing to do" but that, performance wise at least, it is justified. However, I have found driver support and features to be excellent - I have hardware that didn't work properly on XP even after installing the proper drivers that worked flawlessly in Vista out-of-the-box, without installing anything. I was running XP on my main system from the release candidates and yet I can't/won't even use Vista 6 months after launch... that pretty much sums up the point I'm making. XP had problems with driver and software support and it wasn't perfect but the experience was still much better than with Vista.

Why is this a big deal? Over the entire course of the Vista beta and release, I think I had maybe two apps which were incompatible, one of which was fixed with compatibility mode, the other which used a driver, so it had to be updated. Since the release, I haven't encountered a single thing.

All the companies need to to is to adjust their installers to change permissions on the folder they install their applications into, so that all users have r/w rights, and their problem is solved. Not that these apps would then become certified or something, but they would work at least...

buletov said,
All the companies need to to is to adjust their installers to change permissions on the folder they install their applications into, so that all users have r/w rights, and their problem is solved. Not that these apps would then become certified or something, but they would work at least...

I personally don't like how a lot of 3rd parties are forcing their own errors onto the public as "microsoft problems" they are just too use to having full access to systems, now they don't and they scream its MS's fault! when really, they need to look at their own pratices or the pratices of the 3rd party components they use in their applications...

neufuse said,

I personally don't like how a lot of 3rd parties are forcing their own errors onto the public as "microsoft problems" they are just too use to having full access to systems, now they don't and they scream its MS's fault! when really, they need to look at their own pratices or the pratices of the 3rd party components they use in their applications...

I agree, the last thing we need is 3rd party apps changing system settings when they install. That's a No No in my book. MS has a model that apps need to fallow so they work how they should. Before in other versions of Windows this wasn't the case. Now that MS has tightened the screws when it comes to what apps can and can't do on the system, things break and apps don't work. Well, tough luck, developers need to do things by the book so we have better security and some app can't go crazy and wreck a whole system.

Samething applys to hardware drivers.

Yes, it's Microsoft's fault. Don't they think people are going to try and install stuff instantly after loading Vista? They have mega beta testers using the OS, why don't they let 3rd party people test the OS as it gets developed also so it isn't such a mess when they do actually release it? In fact, that is who should be testing it more so than just the casual joe blow user!

Yep, I'm a VistaMe2 basher. Took me 2 days to realize how lousy Vista was and to re-format and install XP Pro back on the 2 computers I had it on. Maybe in a couple years I'll try VistaMe2 again!!

cork1958 said,
Yep, I'm a VistaMe2 basher. Took me 2 days to realize how lousy Vista was and to re-format and install XP Pro back on the 2 computers I had it on. Maybe in a couple years I'll try VistaMe2 again!!

VistaMe2 - that is so sad and not to mention very childish!

WOW, you used it for 2 DAYS - thats certainly enough time to get used to it. NOT!! Thats just as bad as people who have never used it slagging it off!

cork1958 said,
Yes, it's Microsoft's fault. Don't they think people are going to try and install stuff instantly after loading Vista? They have mega beta testers using the OS, why don't they let 3rd party people test the OS as it gets developed also so it isn't such a mess when they do actually release it? In fact, that is who should be testing it more so than just the casual joe blow user!

You do realize that Vista beta was available for anyone including the 3rd party developers to make & test there apps.

(cork1958 said @ #4)
They have mega beta testers using the OS, why don't they let 3rd party people test the OS as it gets developed also so it isn't such a mess when they do actually release it? In fact, that is who should be testing it more so than just the casual joe blow user!

Thats exactly what MS does, they give every build from alphas up to IHV's, ISV's, (3rd party devs, hardware devs) and major computer mfg's... why would you think they wouldn't give their major supporters access to it? Dell and IBM were working with Lohngorn since Alpha stages and helped out a LOT in its development

bbfc_uk said,
WOW, you used it for 2 DAYS - thats certainly enough time to get used to it. NOT!! Thats just as bad as people who have never used it slagging it off!

OK... how about using it for several days until I realized it wouldn't let me use dual monitors with the two graphics cards I have (even though XP would)? Why should I have to spend $x-hundred just to use dual-monitors, when I had no problem doing so with XP?

And for the record, I am aware of Vista's WDDM "feature", which is actually just a device for them to include DRM into their video so that movies you own have their quality reduced unless they're displayed on "approved" monitors.

And people think this is progress.

8-n-1 said,
OK... how about using it for several days until I realized it wouldn't let me use dual monitors with the two graphics cards I have (even though XP would)? Why should I have to spend $x-hundred just to use dual-monitors, when I had no problem doing so with XP?

And for the record, I am aware of Vista's WDDM "feature", which is actually just a device for them to include DRM into their video so that movies you own have their quality reduced unless they're displayed on "approved" monitors.

And people think this is progress.


Wow, I think you took a few more paranoia pills than you were supposed to.

Thanks for your comments "cork1958"; it shows what utter lack of experience and/or understanding you have. Do you have any idea whatsoever of the process and goals defined as a Beta Tester for Microsoft - or any other software company, for that matter? You apparently have a total lack of understanding of what the Software Development and Product Life-cycle entails.

It is impossible to test every single application on every single system configuration - hence, the need for KB & Hotfixes and regular patch releases.

Additionally, the lion's share of the applications that haven't been thoroughly tested on Vista are from small developers and verticle-market applications - looking at the numbers the other way around would sugges that 1350 applications have been either patched by the ISV's or fixed by Microsoft patches. Spining the data around puts a significanly different light on it - suggesting that there has been a massive effort of ISV's and Microsoft to making yet more applications able to run on Vista.

That's ok, though - you're just yet another person who has joined the "Bash Vista & Microsoft" bandwagon - the problem with that bandwagon is that there is no driver on the buckboards, the brakes are not working and two of the wheels are going to fall off of their spindles in any moment.

8-n-1 said,

OK... how about using it for several days until I realized it wouldn't let me use dual monitors with the two graphics cards I have (even though XP would)? Why should I have to spend $x-hundred just to use dual-monitors, when I had no problem doing so with XP?

And for the record, I am aware of Vista's WDDM "feature", which is actually just a device for them to include DRM into their video so that movies you own have their quality reduced unless they're displayed on "approved" monitors.

And people think this is progress.


Vista wouldn't let you?

Don't you mean the drivers that you were using wouldn't let you?

The OS doesn't override the drivers junior.

Also I know tons of people who use Multi-Monitor setups with Vista just fine.

Your $$$ figure is just out there to make noise, since driver updates are free.

Also just one last note for you. The DRM framework actually doesn't have that much to do with WDDM.

The DRM is mostly in the manufacturers drivers. What WDDM provides is user-mode graphics capabilities, instead of kernel-mode.

The advantage to that is when your GPU has issues or cannot render something correctly, you'll just be dropped back to desktop.

That's much better than having a blue screen

how is that microsofts fault? It's not microsoft that wasn't ready, the other software/hardware companies weren't ready yet :S

Come on. MS are not blameless in this. Yes, 3rd parties had or should have had access to Vista long before RTM. But who in their right mind would commit resources and money to writing drivers for alpha or early beta code. Things could change. The main issues now appear to be related to the permissions of certain protected folders. If you were following the beta, this UAC was constantly changing.

Now, to be fair vista had 3 months from RTM to 'retail', and still a lot of stuff wasn't supported. I guess that wasn't long enough. Yes, you could to some extend blame lazy ass 3rd parties here... but then again how long did it take MS to write drivers for their own webcams!

jasondefaoite said,
Come on. MS are not blameless in this. Yes, 3rd parties had or should have had access to Vista long before RTM. But who in their right mind would commit resources and money to writing drivers for alpha or early beta code. Things could change. The main issues now appear to be related to the permissions of certain protected folders. If you were following the beta, this UAC was constantly changing.

Now, to be fair vista had 3 months from RTM to 'retail', and still a lot of stuff wasn't supported. I guess that wasn't long enough. Yes, you could to some extend blame lazy ass 3rd parties here... but then again how long did it take MS to write drivers for their own webcams!

When it comes to the permissions issue Linux does it far better without being anywhere near as being as annoying as Vista is with UAC (BTW, UAC is also the name of the corporation that opens a gateway to hell in Doom. )

I have a M$ Lifecam VX-3000 and I couldn't use it for sometime after getting Vista, though my El Cheapo webcams worked just fine.

jasondefaoite said,
Come on. MS are not blameless in this. Yes, 3rd parties had or should have had access to Vista long before RTM. But who in their right mind would commit resources and money to writing drivers for alpha or early beta code. Things could change. The main issues now appear to be related to the permissions of certain protected folders. If you were following the beta, this UAC was constantly changing.

Now, to be fair vista had 3 months from RTM to 'retail', and still a lot of stuff wasn't supported. I guess that wasn't long enough. Yes, you could to some extend blame lazy ass 3rd parties here... but then again how long did it take MS to write drivers for their own webcams!

I'm sorry, but bullrott! heck, I don't even use Windows, I loath Microsoft, but geeze.

These software companies had over a year of code/API freeze to get their applications compatible, they also have had information relating to depreciated API calls, changes to permissions etc. for well over 2 years.

Sure, Microsoft has issues, but please, if you're going to blame them for something I hardly see it as valid to blame them for the laziness of third party vendors.

Nexus- said,
Your typical blame shifting game. Its popular to make big companies look like bad guys.

It's utterly inane to blame other company's inability to run under Vista as a problem created by Microsoft. Software companies have had YEARS to make their software compatable or to open bugs against the Vista / Longhorn tree. If software companies haven't tested their software on Vista, then they should expect significantly-lower sales figures.

It's simple: EVOLVE OR DIE

jasondefaoite said,
Come on. MS are not blameless in this. Yes, 3rd parties had or should have had access to Vista long before RTM. But who in their right mind would commit resources and money to writing drivers for alpha or early beta code. Things could change. The main issues now appear to be related to the permissions of certain protected folders. If you were following the beta, this UAC was constantly changing.

Now, to be fair vista had 3 months from RTM to 'retail', and still a lot of stuff wasn't supported. I guess that wasn't long enough. Yes, you could to some extend blame lazy ass 3rd parties here... but then again how long did it take MS to write drivers for their own webcams!

While Microsoft is good at general hardware, webcams are, in fact a new area for them. I have their older Internet Keyboard and IntelliMouse (both PS/2) and Logitech's QuickCam Communicate STX (supplied, oddly enough, as a freebie by Microsoft for my participation in the beta-testing of MSN Messenger for Windows XP). The STX is detected by Vista and the base driver is automatically installed; if Internet connectivity is available, updated drivers and software are automagically downloaded and installed. This requires no prompting by the user whatsoever; you can simply click your way when prompted through the entire process. The only other company that is this solid about driver support is (unsurprisingly) Hewlett-Packard (non-all-in-one inkjet and laser printers). The problem is that there are very few companies that take driver development as seriously as Logitech or HP. (My Mom recently replaced her problematical Lexmark inkjet printer with a much less expensive HP inkjet; as opposed to the woes configuring the Lexmark under Windows XP (and it was much worse under Vista; especially considering that even the current drivers for said printer are still horrible), configuring the HP under Vista was a breeze. I had, in fact, recommended HP' because of my own extremely positive experiences with an even older inkjet (the DeskJet 940C) which predates Mom's Dell, which the Lexmark was included with. The DeskJet is still in service (like Mom's own DeskJet, it's USB; also like her DeskJet, Vista configured itself to use the printer with no quibbles).)

Also, as far as the LifeCam issues go, if Microsoft had gotten it *right* the first time, wouldn't some people have been screaming *antitrust*, despite the reality that Logitech has also gotten drivers for their own webcams right? Sometimes, it doesn't pay for an operating-system vendor to also get drivers for their own hardware products right the first time, and this is especially true when the company is Microsoft.

People spend more time attempting to bash Vista than actually trying to use it.
I've barely seen any Applications fail when installed out of Program Files (which is completely protected now), And most Application developers have released updated versions by now. If anything, It's a 3rd party that needs to get off its lazy ass, Rather than Microsoft.

Facts, Quirky online magazines, Facts.


Can you start the flames please

Most programs were not certified for vista but can and will work when they are tweaked slightly. Its mostly due to old practices of keeping settings etc in program files that makes programs throw a wobbly over permissions etc.

Seriously is this any different from any new OS! look when windows 2000 first came out and not so badly XP.

You are correct. XP was just like Vista in regards to program and hardware compatibility when it was released... I wish people would stop having selective memory loss.

And regards to the post title... what has application and hardware compatibility got to do with Vista being ready or not?

TCLN Ryster said,
You are correct. XP was just like Vista in regards to program and hardware compatibility when it was released... I wish people would stop having selective memory loss.

And regards to the post title... what has application and hardware compatibility got to do with Vista being ready or not?

Actually, I'd expect the XP transition probably went better than the Vista one because of Win2000.

Developers had to cope, especially in business environments, with an NT5-based OS for almost two years prior to when XP arrived and brought NT5 home.

Since, compatibility-wise, there was little difference between 2000 and XP, this represented a "soft-launch" period where they could get their stuff NT5-ready prior to it being EVERYWHERE.

With Vista, the "soft-launch" consisted of a few months of public betas and a few months of early-availability prior to retail launch.

Hak Foo said,

Actually, I'd expect the XP transition probably went better than the Vista one because of Win2000.

Developers had to cope, especially in business environments, with an NT5-based OS for almost two years prior to when XP arrived and brought NT5 home.

Since, compatibility-wise, there was little difference between 2000 and XP, this represented a "soft-launch" period where they could get their stuff NT5-ready prior to it being EVERYWHERE.

With Vista, the "soft-launch" consisted of a few months of public betas and a few months of early-availability prior to retail launch.

Vista's launch has more parallels to that of Windows 2000 (especially in terms of business and government) than people are remembering. The first large-scale adoptions of Windows 2000 Professional (in businesses) didn't take place for more than a year after the operating system's launch; it has not even been six months in Vista's case. The primary reason that was necessary was because of incompatibilities with line-of-business applications. Worse, some of the exact things that Microsoft warned developers about starting with Windows 2000 and Windows XP as being unsafe or just plain dangerous to do from a programming standpoint, Vista plain and simply disallows. (How many such *gotchas* are occurring in test lab all over the business and governmental spectrum?)

While the Windows XP transition was a walk in the park by comparison, it is the Windows 2000 transition that is the real benchmark we should be comparing Vista to as far as businesses and governments are concerned.

PGHammer said,
Vista's launch has more parallels to that of Windows 2000 (especially in terms of business and government) than people are remembering. The first large-scale adoptions of Windows 2000 Professional (in businesses) didn't take place for more than a year after the operating system's launch; it has not even been six months in Vista's case. The primary reason that was necessary was because of incompatibilities with line-of-business applications. Worse, some of the exact things that Microsoft warned developers about starting with Windows 2000 and Windows XP as being unsafe or just plain dangerous to do from a programming standpoint, Vista plain and simply disallows. (How many such *gotchas* are occurring in test lab all over the business and governmental spectrum?)

While the Windows XP transition was a walk in the park by comparison, it is the Windows 2000 transition that is the real benchmark we should be comparing Vista to as far as businesses and governments are concerned.

Remember how long Win2000 was in development and many manufacteers still wern't ready?

Transitions to new major versions of Windows are tough (Win3.1 to 95 (4.1), NT4 to 2000 (5.0)) but they get better as developers gain experience with the new OS that people are finally being forced/trust to use.