Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Windows Vista: Windows Vista Bugs
You sure got that wrong!
by cbcooper79 - 3/14/07 10:03 PM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
You sure got that wrong!
It should be M$ responsibility to maintain the compatibility with as much existing software and hardware as possible not "BREAK" so much.
M$ makes and creates the software "standards" yet M4 also continually breaks or changes those standards!
Harware and software vendors don't CHOOSE to wait for the release of any new OS. They cannot afford the time and cost to keep up to date with all of the interim releases.
It is better for them to wait and produce a driver for a RELEASED OS.
Microsoft not responsible for third-party incompatibilities?
by RafOz - 3/15/07 12:32 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
"The thing to keep in mind here is that Microsoft is responsible for Vista, not third-party software and drivers."
Actually- that's not true, and I can refute it with one phrase: the Windows Driver Model. Microsoft has dictated to hardware manufacturers exactly how they are to design their hardware to be considered Windows certified. As the major operating systems move closer and closer to a similar architecture this is not such an issue, but prior to an adoption of similar standards in hardware architecture, when Unix was this mysterious force locked away behind corporate firewalls, Microsoft called the shots and dictated the course of hardware development.
To point at something more recent: peruse the articles over the last 18 months of hardware and software developers complaining that the security features in Microsoft's new operating system made development for it virtually impossible, but Microsoft refused to divulge any of the methods for that security structure because it would *cough* compromise their "most secure operating system". I don't say they hold all of the blame, but don't be so quick to forgive them their sins either. They do hold a very fair share of the blame in this case.
Compatibility lies with the 3rd party vendors
by RazorRich - 3/15/07 3:54 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
We have been developing DRM security software for 9 years and have remained Windows compliant all this time.
When Vista testing started we found that our systems were working perfectly.
Our competitors on the other hand all had major problems requiring all their end-users to run software updates in order for their DRM to operate successfully.
I am certain that if I was one of those end-users who upgraded to Vista and found that my software no longer operated, the blame would immediatelly be thrown at Microsoft, but in fact it is simply because those vendors did not follow Microsoft guildines and remain compliant because it was "too much hassle".
I am sure Microsoft have tried to limit these types of problems but as has been said, if they don't launch before the OS is "perfect" we would probably still be using DOS.
And what about the Zune?
by nevido - 3/15/07 5:09 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
I don't know what it costs to build a driver, but I can understand 3rd party vendors not jumping to build until the bugs are ironed out. When Macs went to OSX Apple knew there would be a lag if not a refusal to write for the new OS, so they built "Classic" an emulator that ran within the OS to allow people to run their old stuff seamlessly with the new. Couldn't Vista have an NT emulator?
Oh yes, the Zune, any news on it being compatible yet? Should yell at somebody I guess.
Thank you for the treatise, Mr. Gates
by Grizzly99 - 3/15/07 5:54 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
There are two issues here. Backward compatibility and forward compatibility between a new OS and other software applications and hardware drivers.
Just because someone buys a new computer SHOULD NOT obligate them to buy another $X thousand(s) of dollars worth of software and/or hardware just to get back to the operational square one at which they began.
Backward compatibility is Microsoft's job. They have the architecture to which third party software/hardware vendors have designed their products, and it's Microsoft's responsibility and obligation to insure that the old stuff, within reason ( i. e. not going to Windows 3.1 compatibles let's say), works seamlessly.
As for "new" software and hardware (and by that, I include existing applications as much as 6 to 12 months od, perhaps) I freely grant that the compatibility of these products with Vista is clearly the responsibility of the third party supplier.
In closing, let me say two things. First I'm still running a copy of MS Office 2000 Professional that has worked just fine through Win 95, 98, ME and XP Pro. If it doesn't work when I have to switch to Vista, that is Miscrosoft's fault.
Second, I used to be an "early adopter" of everything new, both hardware and software wise. The underlying theme of this thread provides the precise justification/motivation for my abandonment of early adoption of new OS software, if humanly possible.
I'm now content to let others be the Guinea Pigs. The release of (the typically ~9.2836 GB) Service Pack 1 for a MS OS is ususally a good time to think about switching to the "new" OS.
Cheers!
Early adopter
by dandevil - 3/15/07 6:06 AM In reply to: Thank you for the treatise, Mr. Gates by Grizzly99I was an early adopter too but now I wait for two things, the price drop and the bugs to get ironed out. I figure Vista will be the system to get in about two years. Like I said, for now XP is working really well for me and I'll let someone else go through the frustrations of using the new product.
Dan
Ditch MS Office
by Frodo420024 - 3/15/07 6:36 AM In reply to: Thank you for the treatise, Mr. Gates by Grizzly99To replace your ageing (but fine - I used it a lot) MS Office 2000, there should be no need to look further than OpenOffice, unless you use really complex documents with macros and stuff.
I've used OOo for four years. It might not look that fancy, and certainly not compared to MS Office 2007, but it Just Works, also in Vista.
Vista
by treadhead1952 - 3/15/07 6:16 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Whay is it so nessesary to upgrade to Vista is a komplete
mistory to me i had the beta and tested 2 versions
everyting worked fine, it did recognize my Hp Psc 950, and Epson R200
without a hitch. Igot a good rating and no apperent problem
having a Biostar mainBoard with a AMD Athlon 64 3800+ and 2,5 GB ram
But it slowed my system so bad I got rid of it after testing it a week or so
Remember Microsoft is resposible for the operating system not the hardware.
but to use a new system wait at least for service pack 2.
as usual the promise everyting is so mutch better and faster ???
Usualy its the opposit (remember all the yokes it makes).
Keep using Xp until Vista has proved it self for a year or 2.
Greeting 2y all
Paul J Moesman
Microsoft responsibility for third party vendors
by malette - 3/15/07 7:18 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
As a rep for several third party vendors, I have been through this before. When XP came out, it was 18 months before we had everything we needed from Microsoft (code, etc.) to make our software compatible. We would have been MORE than happy to have worked it out beforehand but MS never got around to giving out the information.
One of our software suppliers tells us they THINK MS will give them the information by MAY. Release in Winter, compatible in Spring/early Summer maybe? Is that any way to run a railroad, as my grandfather would have asked?
The question I have always asked in all of this (and the pattern has been pretty consistent with every MS OS) is there some way MS can profit by not allowing other manufacturers to become compatible right away? Can they sell more MS software (which would HOPEFULLY be compatible) during this period?
True, it is the responsibility of the vendors to become compatible. However, they cannot reverse engineer to do so. They need co-operation from Microsoft.
AAA-See the tooth fairy, oh you missed that to.
by JWH_ERI - 3/15/07 8:32 AM In reply to: Microsoft responsibility for third party vendors by maletteWho posted the MS Vista Code to the WEB some disgruntled fool who works for one of the jerks water vendor companies, that allows them access to the code, so we the end client (USER) has to put up with spam and viruses.
Whats wrong
by stevep5 - 3/16/07 7:48 PM In reply to: Microsoft responsibility for third party vendors by maletteI have alwas had Microsoft since 3.1
I NEVER moved till the software I was using didn't work.
If Microsoft software is out of date, maybe your 3rd party is as well
Upgrade schmupgrade....
by beebarnes777 - 3/15/07 8:46 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
I am and have been a loyal Windows and Microsoft user since my first PC... (windows 3.0) As I have watched the progression of windows it has been one drbacle after another. Plagued by security problems, compatibility problems, support problems and on and on....
It seems that Mr Gates is more interested in selling a few more copies of his next vision of what a PC is supposed to do than to provide OS's that actually will provide the myriad of users the comfort of having a secure system that does what we expect of the computer at hand.
I just wonder... with all these compatibility problems, how many of you have actually gone out and purchased new hardware to set the system up for Vista and why? and..... why didn't Mr Gates People tell him this was going to be necessary or is it that he just didn't care or didn't want to slow down (an already late) product to market. Seems I read yesterday that the FAA isn't about to subject their computers to this debacle.
For one... I'm stayin with Windows XP til the GURUs in Redmond decide not to support that. I'm not about to spend thousands for a new computer only to have it continue to tell me what an idiot I am for trying software that (I knew from the outset) was going to malfunction.
NEVER UPGRADE
by PhragMunkee - 3/16/07 8:29 PM In reply to: Upgrade schmupgrade.... by beebarnes777There's a fellow named Walter Mossberg, probably the highest paid columnist in the country, who writes the Tech column for the WSJ. He had the right answer months ago, and told anyone who reads his column: do not upgrade your XP computer to Vista. DO BUY an OEM Vista computer when you need a new one. It's that simple. And, furthermore, no matter what the computer manufacturer tries to tell you, DO NOT try to run even the simplest form of Vista on 512 Megs of RAM. You need at least a Gigabyte, preferably 2, and certainly 2 for anything above Vista Home Premium.
As it happens I paid a little extra for a SONY Vista machine running Home Premium with 2 Gigs of RAM, and aside from HP driver issues, it works perfectly. It's obvious from reading the posts on this website that all the problems come from people who (1) upgraded and probably had hardware not up to the task and (2) who bought Dell computers with 512 MB of RAM. Blame Michael Dell, not Bill Gates. He was trying to make a machine that said "Vista" and sold for $799. Dell's greed, not Microsoft's. I know many of you simply want to hate Microsoft, but you don't get to invent your facts.
By the way, there is a statistically significant correlation in these posts between the inability to spell or write coherent grammar and the desire to blame Microsoft. Also, the less one knows about computers, the more the tendency to blame Microsoft. I find those facts fascinating.
512MB??
by guamchris - 3/16/07 8:50 PM In reply to: NEVER UPGRADE by PhragMunkeeMy Vista Ultimate box states 1GB as the minimum. Aside from that, I completely agree with your post. It amazes me the number of individuals who will take on upgrading their computer's OS but would never attempt to change the oil in their car.
Are Microsoft responsible for other software incompatabilty
by andy1512 - 3/15/07 9:39 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
I agree with what others are saying here in the correct defence of MS, Windows Longhorn which then became Vista has been in the pipeline for years.
Most other software companies knew this and had the same period in which to upgrade their software drivers etc.
You can't just blame MS for other companies reluctance to work with MS on suitable upgrading of their products to work with Vista.
I seem to remember the same arguement when Windows 2000 Pro was released and certain drivers etc. failed to work with it.
It is inevitable software companies will start to catch up and release Vista compatible drivers etc.
They have to,if they wish to keep up with public demand to stay current regarding operating systems.
I am contemplating upgrading to Vista but will wait for the following to happen first.
The said companies catch up, the price drops to a realistic cost in the UK and like its predecessors all the service packs have been released to fill in security holes etc.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
