Windows Vista forum: Windows Vista Bugs

OK, so you replied to a message that reads "We all look forward to updates to become bigger, faster, stronger! MS may be late for their release schedules, but they have come out with better products. Should the 3rd party venders want to drag their feet on making updates, I have no problem with moving to another 3rd party vender. It is about Moore's Law. I just cannot wait to see the next release from MS, Intel or AMD!" by bitching about why not to switch to "MAC" . Correct me if I'm wrong, but the message had nothing to do with switching to Apple computers. Me thinks you protest too much.

And the rest of your comments are rubbish anyway. You're parroting what you've heard for years. Repeating something doesn't make it any more true.

1) If you do a lot of DTP under Windows, then you should realize that your print service provider hates your files, and if they're smart, charge you more for handling them.
2) The Mac "population" has been far greater than 2.8% for quite some time.
3) WTF are you talking about Adobe not releasing upgrades for the Mac? I am a partner in the Adobe Solutions Network, and that statement 100% not true. Now, if you're using creative fact deployment, Adobe hasn't released Intel-Mac specific versions of their products... YET. But that doesn't mean they don't intend to, and it's not the same as what you are suggesting. When CS3 is released, it will be a Universal release. (And since you are living in 1997, and don't know what that means, Universal means it will be released for PPC Macs, Intel Macs and will ship concurrently with the Windows release.
4) Mac + Intel does not = Windows. Yes I know that's not what you said, but that is what you were implying. Intel hardware in Macs gives the ADDED OPTION of running Windows. Does Dell give you the option of running Mac OS X? No.
5) Proprietary? You just contradicted all the whoopla that with Intel in Apple computers, that there is nothing different about Apple computers from run-of-the-mill PC hardware. The only thing that is proprietary about Apple's computers is the operating system.
And lastly, 6) if Macs are underpowered, then most Windows computers are also underpowered, because they all run on the same technology base now.

Instead of bitching about what you obviously know NOTHING about, why don't you pick up a respectable computer trade magazine, and learn something about the topic. Hell, at least reply in context to what you are replying to. You're embarrassing yourself.

Hi guys!
I perfectly agree that Microsoft is not to be blamed, but i think we are looking at it from a "techie" point of view. From a business point of view, customers don't seem to think if third party developers are lacking behind. All they think of is if something works with vista or not.
So from that point of view i think it's part of Microsoft responsibility to push for that. It's the responsibility to make available what the customer wants if they wish to sustain their competitive advantage against the rapid growth market of MAC. After all, it's all about getting and keeping customers, and if they fail to see that, then most PC users (who barely know the technicalities of technology) will shift to other alternatives like MAC.

If Microsoft has provided 3rd party vendors with the necessary information re Vista and this was done in a timely fashion, this is not a Microsoft problem. Don't assign blame, accept responsibility when you actually own the problem.

My vote goes with Microsoft on this issue.

AOL 9.0 VR is designed to run on the new Windows Vista operating system, so that anyone upgrading to Windows Vista can continue to use their AOL service. The AOL 9.0 VR Refresh software includes bug fixes and connectivity improvements.

AOL 9.0 VR Refresh will run on both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista environments, and now installs the full (not the LE) version into the 64-bit edition of Windows XP. We ask that anyone using Microsoft Windows Vista Operating System to please download and try out this software.

I guess every time Ford makes a new car Firestone has to redesign the tires they put on the car? Maybe we have to buy a new kind of fuel everytime we buy a new car.

I have hauled truck loads of hardware and software to the thrift store as a result of upgradeing all the way from Win 3.0 to XP. Six months ago I gave up the fight and bought a Mac as I have threatened for years and have yet to have ONE problem with it. Some today told me that "Vista" works like and looks like a Mac. I thought to myself why not buy a Mac. Go to the Mac forums and you will not read these kind of complaints.

I am not the anointed techie type. Just a user who likes to get on the edge. When I upgraded to Vista I went to 64 bit version. That was enough to make me feel like an orphan. But I thoroughly researched the matter and got my software, hardware, etc all lined up. My experience tells me that this rig runs well, has minimal problems, and only a few programs are adversely effected. Because I made the BIG jump, I don't know what folks are encountering with 32 bit versions other than what I read here. Oh, to be sure, common programs like Real Audio STILL don't work (I doubt that MS causes that), my favorite photo editor an old Adobe Photo Deluxe Bus. Edition that worked on everything from Win 95 on doesn't work, and some parts of other applications don't work even if the main portions do. So it's a mixed bag but overall I am satisfied with it. MS SHOULD release an opsys that is compatible with most things run in XP/2000 if they want to avoid log jams. 3rd Party folks should get HOT about revising their software to live with Vista (incl 64 bit)because that is where their income is based. Otherwise this takes on the appearance of a 3rd party vendor palace revolt against MS that in the long haul will likely fail.

I have a question for the users blaming Microsoft or third-party vendors. Shouldn't the users know by now that when upgrading to a different OS, they suppose to make sure they have all the drivers or at least check with the third-party vendors to see if they have all the right drivers for the OS they're upgrading to? Come on people, this is NOT new (remember Win95, 98, 2000, and XP drivers compatibility problems?). Many people (myself included) and many companies hold off on upgrading to Vista because of compatibility, security, and the cost of upgrading issues.

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.

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.

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!

To 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.

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.

I 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

There'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.

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.