Buy Microsoft Office Home & Student
Windows Vista: Windows Vista Bugs
Vista backward compatibility problems
by Chris_T52 - 3/15/07 11:43 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Nuts! Why is this even a matter of opinion? Did MS ever say that you could upgrade to Vista and still run your software? If yes, then yes, problems are the blame of Microsoft.
If not, then there is room to argue, but I don't recall ever hearing from Microsoft that, by the way, Vista is likely to cause problems with your current software. I've worked with a number of operating systems and breaking backward compatibility is a problem every other vendor avoids like the plague. Microsoft seems to use it to competitive advantage - "Oh, their software doesn't work with our OS? We can help you; use our software."
There are published standards, mostly written by MS itself, for calls to the OS/system libs, like the C libs, ActiveX, etc., 99% of software only makes calls to the published standards. Microsoft changes the standards and 3rd-party vendors scramble to catch up. I've been on the bad end of this more than once. It takes 6-12 months for release cycles of major software. Vendors have to decide between cutting back feature enhancements and bug fixes in order to ensure next OS release compatibility or moving forward with their own work and hoping that Microsoft will put some effort into ensuring backward compatibility. Sure, there has to be some compatibility testing done by vendors, but it shouldn't require a major effort.
Thanks to all you people
by prtsbyaj - 3/15/07 3:51 PM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Many years ago I too felt a need to frustrate myself and be the first on the block to try the latest software. Now I wait for someone else to find and argue with Microsoft and HP about such issues. All Software and Hardware Manufacturers put products on the market which need to be tested. That is what is going on today with Vista. Microsoft is allowing you to find the problems, then they will fix them for me. In a couple years after you have found the problems and Microsoft has fixed them, I'll venture into the market. Thanks guys.
Totally disagree. Microsoft set a earlier precidence.
by consaka - 3/15/07 3:53 PM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Microsoft set a precidence for being backward compatible with previus version. Not only is Vista a slow slug with twice as much ram but it also not backwards compatible with alot of software. Both these items should be noted for new buyers and upgraders.
The big thing I find annoying is Microsofts push of this new OS. they have been making it the biggest must have out there and there really is no reason to buy it at all.. Unless of course you need the challenge of working through incompatibilities on a really slow machine. Good test of the patience your mother always said you needed to develop.
Microsoft vs third-party vendors...
by swamprat - 3/16/07 11:08 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Remember the only reason Microsoft releases a new OS is profit. When their design creates issues with current drivers there is no profit for the 3rd party to cater to Microsoft and their new problem child. If Microsoft wants to include changes that cause problems then sure as hail in a thunderstorm, Microsoft should get the blame and pay for it. I know I am different but I don't upgrade, ever. The last upgrade I made was DOS 6.2. When I buy a new PC I use what comes with it and Never Ever change till a OS is out 3 years or longer. It seems to take that long for MS to make things work. Oh, if only there was a viable competitor for Shutters er windows!
There are no excuses for incompatability problems
by benmoto - 3/17/07 10:01 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Don't go running to apple because older technology fails to work properly with Vista. Go to apple because you like the interface and the limited hardware that you can use and the limited software that is available. Run- don't walk to apple because you have no desire to upgrade components that are so easy to do on a pc and are so limited on a mac. Gallup to apple because you have no desire to reuse old hardware and software to put together machines for kids and friends.
Finally transport to apple not because vista disappoints you but because you like to be walk in lock step with the in-crowd. Don't look left - don't look right. There is only one way to be safe the apple way. Enjoy your pablum.
Microsoft vs third-party vendors
by clifford_k_2002 - 3/18/07 6:33 PM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
I agree, software developed after Vista's Beta began running
should of had compatabilities written into the software programs.
All of my programs are 2004 or older and generally work fine..
I will do my darndist to stay with XP for a long time....
Vista problems? what's new?
by Ermitao - 3/19/07 12:00 PM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
I don't normally participate in these discussions because I am not an expert, I am only a "home user" of a PC. But this issue is making my blood boil and I had to make a comment. When the PC "experts" of this world comment that it's just a matter of getting new drivers for the new OS, and the third party manufacturers of other hardware, are the ones to blame for not updating their drivers, they keep on forgetting that the majority of home users, do not even know where to look for the new drivers, or even how to install them if they were to find them, never mind resolving all the other problems that would still come up even after installing new drivers. I only changed from windows ME to XP when I had to upgrade my PC for a faster machine, at this time I requested the PC vendor to install all the relevant XP compatible drivers. Now, I will again wait until my current PC becomes a collectors item and only change to the new OS when I next upgrade my PC, by then, no doubt, VISTA will also have become history, and there will be some other new OS on the market. I have no problem with developing new and better systems, but why is it that when microsoft each time develops a new system, the majority of the PC users, the "non-experts" have to fork out more money to get the "experts" to sort out the incompatibilities that the new OS causes? I feel that microsoft should firstly inform the public, for the sake of the "non-experts" what problems they are bound to encounter when upgrading to the new OS, and then, have a free support centre availabe, to assist with obtaining compatible drivers and how to troubelshoot when they load them. I know that most of you, the "experts" will disagree with me, but what the heck, I'm not an "expert", just a user.
Eddie
John? ! THAT Is just PLAIN W R O N G
by com2pc - 3/21/07 10:30 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
When Windows X P replaced Win 98 It was a Vast improvement INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY and software Drivers. MANY times after installing X P You dont even need them motherboard CD for peripherals such as sound and Video!! X P had added tons of DRIVERS which windows would search for and install for you.( for NEW hardware / software) !!!! So What happened with VISTA?? Did M S Get LAZY?? Why release and SELL a product to The Public that is INFERIOR to your previous O S??. Obviously M S wants to Lose customers.. Im Sure MAC and LINUX will be Greatful. I wouldnt have VISTA ona POPSICLE stick If They gave It to me FREE!! Not Only are There TOO MANY Incompatibility issues with software programs. There are BUGS ..And Not The least to mention. VISTA Is a H U G E RESOURCE > H O G...It is Never going to Operate Properly much less PERFORM on anything OTHER than a "State of the ART" (NEW Machine)..It Needs ( to perform at acceptable level) at least 2 gigs of DDR memory >> 4 is BETTER !!! It also needs T H E fastest Processor Your Motherboard can take!! So Keep in Mind IF You are thinking of "UPGRADING" From ANYTHING to VISTA?? You will be UPGRADING W A Y More Than just Your O S !!!And THEN You will stil have the BUGS and Incompatibilities! Y O U Cannot Blame ANYONE B U T Microsoft and Bill Gates for any and all of these issues!! I F Toyota made and sold their cars in such a manner?? Do You think That the Big 3 Auto makers would be worrying about sales?? Is It the 3rd party and hardware manufacturers fault That MICROSOFT Built an
E D S E L ?? I Think N O T.. It will be a "COLD Day In HELL", before VISTA goes On one Of my P C'S !! Or at least a very long time?? Like when Bill and M S pull their heads out of ???? The sand !
Specious argument at best.
by Sheeva1 - 3/23/07 6:10 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Do you blame the glass maker for not putting glass into the window frame when the window maker forgets? Sorry but your whole argument inferring other vendors of software/hardware are totally to blame smacks of complacency and a horse blinder attitude.
MS at the best of times does not play well with others. It has been their tactic for every single release of any of their products. Why? Primarily because MS perceives a slight advantage as being the only vendor to provide truly compatible products for any of it's O/Ss. This is all due to their fierce defense of CLOSED STANDARDS!!!!! Note, I'm not referring to Open Source but to STANDARDS!!!
If MS adhered to standards as closely as others or as they try to sell us on, why are even their own products not backward compatible? Case in point. I recently downloaded from MS's site a demo version of Office 2007. I created some material and saved them as Office version 2000. Neither Office 2000 nor 2003 could open them. A message said to click on the link to go to the site for a "viewer"; did that but the site said it's not yet available. So if a 10,000 person organization has documents (hundreds of thousands in millions even) in various past versions of Office how in heck is anyone going to be able to do an upgrade to 2007 Office overnight? Balderdash - MS doesn't care. So what third party vendor do I blame now? (Let's not forget how Office 97 could not open or read Office 95 documents either, an so on and so on.)
Also, VISTA is a mashup of their O/S road map, more of an upgrade to XP than a full new product. MS is trying to meet the competitive 64 bit market and other new market drivers by providing "future" items now that will be only a part of what the next version will be; sort of a stepping stone. Just know that Vista today will be on the heap tomorrow once MS finally releases it's new directory file system - definitely no backward compatibility.
MS should be ashamed to force customers to even have to think about backward compatibilities. Other vendors within their product suites ensure at least one if not more past interations compatibility; so why can't MS? Again, they prefer to keep the profitability edge as long as possible. Hence forcing users to an unproven non-backward compatible O/S which in turn forces all other non-MS products - hardware or software - to follow in MS's footsteps.
In the increasing competition for on-line services, MS is playing catch-up at the cost of our desktops. It's not the so called "third-party" vendors such as Adobe that should wait for products from MS that are stable and as close to "patch free" as possible - that's MS's job. Even Ms's own Live One can't keep Vista secure - - so how can you expect anyone else to in such an environment where one vendor dictates to all?
I'd say the same...
by John.Wilkinson - 3/23/07 11:25 AM
In reply to: Specious argument at best. by Sheeva1
1.) Closed standards is not just a Microsoft term. Talk with Apple, Adobe, Sun, Symantec, etc. and you'll find the same things.
2.) Office 2007 uses a new OPTIONAL document format that adds additional functionality and cuts the file size dramatically. It still supports the old formats, which can be opened by previous versions of Office. It is your CHOICE to save it in a new format which offers new benefits but is incompatible with old versions. They also provide a free reader so if someone sends you a document in the new format and you can't open it, you can use a FREE program to do so.
in short, they ARE maintaining the standard. Old and new versions alike can create documents that open flawlessly in each other. However, they are adding new functionality to the new software. There is no obligation to update old versions with the new functionality such that the old versions are identical to the new.
3.) I thought every version of every program was a stepping stone to the next version. Mac OS X 10.1 led to 10.2, Ubuntu Dapper Drake to Edge Eft, Acrobat reader 7.0 to Adobe Reader 8.0, etc. They all plan years in advance, and each release is a stepping stone to another milestone on their product roadmaps. They fell drastically behind and therefore cut many features from the OS, but I still would not consider it another ME.
4.) If you are referring to WinFS, it's not a physical filing system...NTFS will remain the underlying filing system, thus maintaining complete compatibility with 2000/XP/Vista.
5.) It's not one company dictating to all...Mac OS X, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Linspire, and many other fish are in the sea. Granted, Microsoft is more restrictive than most others, but they all have various conventions and restrictions you must follow. Remember, a program is designed to run on the operating system, not the other way around.
6.) Microsoft OneCare (I assume that's what you are referring to) was a mistake on Microsoft's part, and admittedly so. They rushed it to release without the proper testing and analysis, and thus has been an overall failure in the 'real world.' However, a failed initial attempt at creating a security suite is not an indication of a difficult environment; it's an indication they do not have the knowledge and skill as of yet to design an adequate security package.
John
maybe it's just the version i bought........
by skizz - 2/13/07 10:50 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohami just went with the "home basic edition" figured thats all i needed till i got a new pc with vista preinstalled. but haven't had no problems with it. nortons did a uninstall of 2007 and loaded vista compatible 2007, only thing i bought extra was a better video card. on a whim i also loaded it on an old compaq presario i have. 1.29 ghz, 512 ram, 256 video card, and it runs fine. only deal on that one was had to uninstall and reinstall avast.
Microsoft at fault
by Dec765 - 2/16/07 5:37 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamIt is Microsoft's O/S and their responsibility to grant sufficient time and availability to ALL hardware and application vendors to be able to update their products, not just their preferred inner circle.
Personally I only ever perform an upgrade on a totally new hard drive. Only when I am completely satisfied EVERYTHING works do I cease using the old drive and migrate all my data.
£50 is a very small price to pay for ensuring you have a stable system
This scene sounds like Microsoft to a T
by Larry Launstein Jr - 2/16/07 5:46 AM In reply to: Microsoft at fault by Dec765I'm sure you all have seen the James Bond movie where the bad guy who controls a media empire comes out and says one of the ways he wants to control the world is by making people buy a bad operating system where they have to always buy an upgrade for.
Sounds so much like Microsoft to me.
Hello Apple, Goodbye Microsoft.
I'm right behind you Larry, hello Mac/Leopard
by rnice - 2/16/07 6:08 AM In reply to: This scene sounds like Microsoft to a T by Larry Launstein JrHopefully not getting too far off the original thread topic - but I'm in the same boat as Larry and others. I've never used a MAC before in my life. But I'm an electrical engineer - and to be honest I deal with this crap all day long except on larger scale. It's the 21st century and Microsoft should have the project management skills to get their partners (read: indentured servants) up to speed before the launch. The home PC has been around for 20 years - they should have thier stuff down patt by now - but no, just one more have baked product for the end user to suffer with -a nd we can make it up with lots of marketing sort of logic. I'm done. I'm tired of justifying Windows to my friends with Apple laptops who have to deal with exactly none of this crap. I'm running XP on my Dell Dimension until XP is utterly spent of life - and then I'm buying an Apple. I hope everyone else does the same, if nothing else to force MS to concentrate on making a quality product. There must be something better than this, and I am the mold customer who is tired of eating MS crap so much that within one year I will be willing to gamble ~1000 on hardware and software that is unfamiliar to me on the bet that there is.
(exhale)
Ok. I feel better now. My apologies.
R
Here we go again
by Iconoclysm - 2/16/07 6:48 AM In reply to: I'm right behind you Larry, hello Mac/Leopard by rniceFirst of all, Microsoft has never sent a release product to anyone a year before release, every OS has followed this same track. This is absolutely a case of 3rd parties dragging their feet. The Vista final release was November 15th but the driver model has been in place for nearly a year. The OS was not rushed, and to say so is completely ignorant. The thing was delayed for a year, for starters, and took longer to release than any Windows OS yet.
If you think Vista is a bad OS, not functional, or doesn't have enough unique changes to be released as a new OS, you're either mentally challenged, blind, or completely brainwashed by bad user reviews from "users" that haven't even used the product.
Finally, this Mac argument is ridiculous. If Mac can do what you need then you need a Mac. There's a reason so many people use Windows, because there is so much software for it that isn't available anywhere else. If your needs are that niche, you should be using the niche platform...end of story.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
