Vista compatibility

[Brice Manuel]

Everything that I've written has been in an effort to try and help people understand why things work the way they do and the rationale behind it, but all that happens is I get labeled a "fanboy"...

You didn't get labeled "fanboy" for helping people or for explaining things.  Everybody appreciates that, myself included. 

"Fanboy" comes in when you continually ignore and refuse to address legitimate issues or put down industry leaders who are pointing out issues or potential issues with Vista.  "Fanboy" comes in when you try and promote hyperbole or opinions as "fact".

I am still waiting for you to give me a legitimate reason as to why I am wrong for giving my EUs a choice of where to save their data on their own systems?  ('cause MS says so" isn't a legitimate reason.  We are not on the playground in grade school.  Answers like that don't cut it in the adult world.  I need real answers as to why I am wrong to provide a file dialog to my users and allow them to choose where to save their own data on their own systems.  How am I wrong in giving my EUs a "choice"?)

I am still waiting for you to comment on how indie game developers' games are being restricted on Vista due to the issues with Game Explorer and the requirements of ESRB ratings.  (The article I linked to is by one of the industry leaders and a man who worked for MS and was involved in DX coming to be.  His background, knowledge and experience is irrefutable.)

You have put down and made fun of the guys who do the Security Now podcast when they pointed out some security concerns with Vista.  I am still waiting for you to produce facts that prove them wrong, or provide documentation of your background and experience in the security industry that will trump that of Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte. 

Since you asked, I have read Windows Application Specification guidelines very thoroughly several weeks ago.  The guidelines on how we are no longer supposed to give our EUs a choice on how they use their system and how we are supposed to "hijack" the system and make decisions for them, brings to mind this old picture I have attached.

[Rock Ridge Farm (Larry)]

So far - in my  opinion the structure of the multitude of versions of Vista is going to turn off
the average user's upgrade experience.  I got a free vista upgrade with the last computer
I bought (64 bit dual core media center). I have now reloaded the original XP version.
From a developer standpoint I think vista may be an issue. Unless you go with the top
of the line version you may find things missing from the OS. If you develop on the top version
your code may not run on lesser versions.

[carpman2007]

Vista will use virtualization to store the file in:

C:\Users\<User_name>\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\<Application_name>

So while the program will run OK it will only store the high score data for the logged in user.  Any other users that log into Vista won't have access to that file and the high score data will be non existant.

This explains it better:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927387

Paul.

Thank you, Paul, for answering my question, and thanks to everyone else for their input as well.

(Funny how a new release of an OS stirs up such emotions!)

[mrainey]

(Funny how a new release of an OS stirs up such emotions!)

Funny is one word for it.  I don't make a living from writing Windows software, so find it pretty hard to get emotionally involved with Vista requirements.

[Shannara]

One thing to be weary of. The newest vista patches (there were a total of four for me, despite the news), crashes your install until you reinstall vista. I continuously got the blue screen of death every time I played any game on the system. I had to reinstall yesterday, and did not touch the newest patches. Everything is running nicely now. Microsoft did this once before with an XP patch, which they chose to fix the following month.

So yeah, have fun with Vista, just dont install the patches until weeks later so you'll know if it fixed or broke something.

[seberbach]

<Setting up "accounts" for each user is beyond the skill level of the average home user.  This feature never should have made it to the home versions, it is only needed for business systems.>

That quote may be true, but at my house there is an xp computer being used for I-tunes.  Each kid has insisted on having their own I-pod, and the Digital Rights Management insists on each I-pod/associated I-tunes having one account ALLOWED to tranfer music. No copying somebody else's music!  NA.NA.NA!

So I had to create seperate accounts just to keep the I-tunes happy.

(I did see a freeware ITunes 'clone' (minus DRM and Itunes store of course) from U.K. workaround, though.  Need to download it soon, when I find the URL)

I hate to think what will happen when the music distributers' DRM software and Vista gang up together!

Perhaps they will "be hoisted with their own petard".

[Steven Picard]

Microsoft does set out many guidelines which developers are supposed to follow.  Apple has them as well.  Part of their reason is to insure that the software will behave as expected and also so it'll work on future versions of Window's.  Most developers don't read these guidelines and when they're finally enforced there's a backlash against Microsoft.   I am not agreeing with the guidelines since I do find them a little too restrictive but that is a fact.

I think some of us have come down a little too hard on Mike S.  In every debate both sides should be heard.  He is one side while people like Bruce are the other.  I have tried Vista and found it "pretty" but annoying.  I know what I want to do and it keeps treating me like an idiot.  Unfortunately, Microsoft felt a need to do that because most users are when it comes to computers.  I remember when Win XP came most people did not want to upgrade and there was a big backlash until SP1 came which added greater compatibility.  I think SP1 for Vista will help fix things but I don't think greater compatibility will be one of them.

[Brice Manuel]

Most developers don't read these guidelines and when they're finally enforced there's a backlash against Microsoft.

It is worth noting that even if you 100% follow the guidelines, your game will still not be "officially" compatible with Vista unless you shell out thousands of dollars for each game to get an ESRB rating so it can get listed in the Game Explorer.

[mrainey]

Reminds me of the manufacturing world, where a company can have airtight control over procedures and documentation, all in accordance with textbook practices, and still not be able to qualify for lots of contracts until it pays thousands of dollars to be audited and deemed "ISO 9000 Certified".  It's just considered to be a part of the cost of doing business in the 21st century.

[Ionic Wind Support Team]

I think some of us have come down a little too hard on Mike S.  In every debate both sides should be heard.  He is one side while people like Bruce are the other.  I have tried Vista and found it "pretty" but annoying.  I know what I want to do and it keeps treating me like an idiot.  Unfortunately, Microsoft felt a need to do that because most users are when it comes to computers.  I remember when Win XP came most people did not want to upgrade and there was a big backlash until SP1 came which added greater compatibility.  I think SP1 for Vista will help fix things but I don't think greater compatibility will be one of them.

Yeah I probably am guilty of being too hard on him. 

XP wasn't that much of a change from Windows 2000.  In fact the version was 5.1 over the 5.0 Windows 2000 version.  Compatibility was much better than say switching from 98 to NT/2000 and the interface was close enough that users felt comfortable with it, especially when you switch themes off.  And XP did have a lot to offer Windows 9x users in terms of stability and true 32 bit multitasking.  The only downfall was DOS games which most of us worked around by keeping a 98 boot disk handy and just running them from a true MSDOS environment.  Wasn't a real big deal.  NT had been around for a long time before XP so business users adapted relatively easily.

Vista is the first real drastic change by Microsoft since switching from 3.1 to 95.  My personal take on it is that the OS is becoming a bit too invasive and "in your face" when the textbook definition of an operating system is:

An operating system (OS) is a computer program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and managing files. It also may provide a graphical user interface for higher level functions. It forms a platform for other software.

What Microsoft is doing is changing the basic defintion of what an OS is supposed to be.  Turning it from something that is expected to perform its tasks in the background, without affecting productivity, into something else.  Not just an OS but an all-encompassing software "package" to control every aspect of your computing use.  That, in a nutshell, is probably my biggest objection to the direction Microsoft has chosen.  I don't want an OS to get in my way of daily productivity, I want it to just run programs

Paul.

[Steven Picard]

"Steve Ballmer is trying to find something to blame Vista's slow sales on besides Microsoft. His scapegoat for Vista looks to be pirates. Not the scourge of the seven seas, but the scourge of software developers."
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/how-to-piss-off-balmer-and-steal-vista-237915.php

[Junner2003]

Hmmm, interesting.

Since 1 month I upgraded all of my computers (4 desktops and 2 notebooks from different manufacturers) to VISTA - had no trouble since then!
EBasic is running just fine, a few smaller problems such as Window size turns out a bit different on XP than on Vista through the different graphical elements I guess ...

I,ve spent a couple of weeks to read about the new old ENVIRONMENT in VISTA.
The UAC (User Account Control) does not really make trouble!

One thing game programmers might wanna pay attention to: It seams like in VISTA is a complete new version of DirectX. I recognized that when I installed NERO BURNING ROM 7 for VISTA. During the installation I had to install DirectX 9C (not sure - it was too fast for my eye when this message peopped up - my hand is trained just to click next on any message at the screen ... )

Programmers tend to stick with what they have on their computers - I am no different in any way! :-)
But finally everybody has to answer himself a question: For whom are you writing your programs? For yourself? Well, then VISTA is not important and you can just go on with what ever you have on your system! Or are you writing for other people? Then better get to know the latest Microsoft OS as much as you have to in order to write stabile and save applications ...

[Bruce Peaslee]

He is one side while people like Bruce are the other.

What side am I on again?   

[Rock Ridge Farm (Larry)]

Pick one - I will pick the other then we balance.

[LarryMc]

I feel ya'lls pain.... I feel very strongly both ways

[Rock Ridge Farm (Larry)]

Left, Right, Middle - we got it covered.

[chris_s]

I have a laptop running under Vista. I've been trying the sample programs and I've had a problem with a few of them. The dictionary_text module is an example. When I try to run it, I don't get any output and the CPU goes to 50% and stays there. I have to go to the Task Manager and cancel it. When I run it in debug mode, the last line before the loop is the load of Oleaut32.dll. Once I cancel the task, EBasic tells me that it exited with code 1. A number of other programs have exhibited the same behaviour.

Chris

[Ionic Wind Support Team]

ODBC drivers have problems under Vista.  You probably need Office 2007 to make it work.