Who'd be Bill Gates/Microsoft?

[gpalmer711]

I've been running the Final Version of Vista Ultimate on my Main business PC for a couple of months now. Before that i'd be using the beta versions on a spare machine, I had been doing that for the best part of a couple of years.

Now if I, as a normal(well as normal as I get) person of the street, have had access to the software for that amount of time. Why have the software and hardware manufaturers not been able to get their software to work on it.

I run my own business, I have done for 3 years now, and I tend to go where the money is. I started out as a PC Repair guy and now i'm website and design guy. So a lot of my work is done on Photoshop and illustrator, 2 great products from Adobe and Visual Studio 2005 another great product by Microsoft.

Microsoft say that most software that was programmed in the correct way, based on "their" guideline should work with the new UAC features. Why is it then that Visual Studio 2005 will only work if you run it as admin? Are they planning to fix VS2005 to work with Vista? Nope were going to have to wait for the next version.

Same with Adobe, any Vista incompatabilities will be fixed with the next version of the software.

So i'm sat here last night after Adobe crashes for the 3rd time, losing a little bit of work and i'm getting more and more annoyed with Microsoft and thinking of going back to XP. I then calm down and think of how hard it must be to be stuck between the "Rock and the Hard Place" as Microsoft it. On one hand they have users screaming out for a more secure operating system. One that doesn't have a million and one security holes, one that should something get on your machine - it cannot delete all of your files becuase you are running the machine as an admin user. On the other hand people want an operating system that runs all the software they have ever owned, going back to that little time waster game they had back on Windows 3.1.

Oh an then of course they have the problem of every man and their dog suing them for anti-trust issues - so that secure o/s has to be blown apart and software removed because it is unfair to bundle it with the O/s.

You might think from reading this that i'm a Microsoft "Fanboy", and while I may like a lot of the products that they offer and I may be a MS MVP. I am also aware of the failings of the company. I just hope that others might read this and realise that while somethings could have been done better by both MS and other software/hardware vendors, perhaps MS is not all that bad after all.

Right rant over, i'm now off to my corner to be beaten by all the Mac and Linux people.

Greg Palmer
Freeware Utilities for Windows Administrators.

http://www.palmersoft.co.uk

 

[1DMF]

at least you can moan about what does and doesn't run on Vista, i can't even get it installed! Just as well I still have XP ;-)

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[linney]

Greg, you sound like a man in need of a dual boot with XP, that way you can have twice as many problems as you have currently. The skeptic in me says, why should anybody fix something to run on Vista when it is perhaps more profitable to offer a new piece of hardware or software to the computer public for purchase?

 

[gpalmer711]

Linney,

Now I was hoping that I would get away without Dual Boot. I figured that I would be able to run Vista and should I need XP for anything then I would simply load up Virtual PC and hay presto. Seems like for now Dual Boot is the way for me.

Oh and I totally agree with

The skeptic in me says, why should anybody fix something to run on Vista when it is perhaps more profitable to offer a new piece of hardware or software to the computer public for purchase?

Greg Palmer
Freeware Utilities for Windows Administrators.

http://www.palmersoft.co.uk

 

[wolluf]

My vista machine is still on a back burner, because I can't trust it to run what I need yet (and I don't use apps to produce stuff like Greg - I'm still a PC repair guy). And while I agree with some of Greg's points (particularly other manufacturers have had plenty time to produce patches/drivers for Vista), I can't help thinking that MS have historically helped create this problem by pursuing bad operating systems. For example, windows 3/3.1/3/11 had a totally unfriendly interface, crashed if you looked at it and if you tried to run 2 programs at once! However, they wrote os/2 for IBM - which was stable, good at multitasking (still nothing to write home about on the user interface) - but didn't incorporate those 'good' features into their own o/s. They did develop NT - good idea - but when replacing windows 3.1, we get 95 (and 98, 98SE, ME) - which was really 3.1 with dome 32 bit code & a makeover interface. Leaving the real o/s (NT) out in the cold till XP (2k was of course abortive attempt at XP). So we have lots of legacy that could have been avoided. To me, Vista is still not necessary - its few 'better than XP' points (I'm not including security - that's still to be seen) could have been incorporated in XP. They say Vista has lots of extensibility built in - I hope so, as that's been the problem as far as I'm concerned. A good operating system should be growable for some time to come (I'm thinking 10 years is reasonable, looking at XP) - so it doesn't need replacing too often. Stability of this sort is generally good for most people - whatever's said about new o/s making things easier, people more productive etc, the simple truth is the exact opposite for everybody who already use an operating system. They have to retrain, find new/updated apps drivers etc. So I don't feel too sorry for MS.

 

[gpalmer711]

A good operating system should be growable for some time to come (I'm thinking 10 years is reasonable, looking at XP)

Last I heard from MS is that they are trying to go back to their normal turn around time for o/s of 2 1/2 to 3 years.

I have to say that as an o/s I was really happy with XP, I rarely had a problem and when I did it was normally hardware related. I suppose we'll see how Vista pans out after another 6 months or so - once it has a reasonable user base. So far this forum has been reletivly quiet.

Greg Palmer
Freeware Utilities for Windows Administrators.

http://www.palmersoft.co.uk

 

[Nelviticus]

At first I frowned upon vendors who weren't willing to provide free Vista-compatibility upgrades for their software, but then I thought about it this way: they have written software for XP which works. Unless they promised that it would also work on subsequent Windows versions, why should they provide free upgrades? If I sell someone a sofa and a year later they come back complaining that they've re-decorated their room and the old sofa looks awful with their new colour scheme, I shouldn't have to re-upholster it for free, should I?

Nelviticus

 

[1DMF]

nice analogy, but it all depends on the licence agreement that the software shiped with, if it was suppose to be "Windows" compatible with free upgrades and patches then yes they should supply Vista upgrades.

however if they said it was XP only compatible with no upgrades, patches or any kind of warranty whatsoever then no they shouldn't.

if you look at a lot of laptops being sold and PC's they say 'Designed for Windows XP / Vista Ready' , so any bundled software that goes with the computer should definately be compatible with both OS.

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[Stevehewitt]

As MS say, if the applications are written according to their own guidelines regarding the location of where files should be stored/written to, driver signing etc, then it will run on Vista.

Developers seem to dig their heads in the sand half the time. They write software, test it as a full administrator rather than local user, and then ship it. Stop it with custom this and that.

The ironry in all this is that VS2005 requires SP1 or SP2 (can't remember which) to run in Vista!

Credit to MS for sticking to their guns. Write propper software or don't bother. (This, along with UAC may help the "stability issue" Windows has. The majoriy of issues on Windows are caused by end-user mistakes and badly written software.)

Cheers,




Steve.

"They have the internet on computers now!" - Homer Simpson

 

[gpalmer711]

Couldn't agree with you more Steve. Unfortunatly until more apps are Vista Friendly im having to go back to a dual boot. Currently backing up all my files now for a full reinstall.

Greg Palmer
Freeware Utilities for Windows Administrators.

http://www.palmersoft.co.uk