Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Software Missing From Vista's "Official Apps"

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the big-holes dept.

Windows 288

PetManimal writes "Microsoft has just released a list of 800 applications it says are 'officially supported' on Windows Vista. What's special about this list, however, are the programs that are not included: 'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software, Symantec Corp.'s security products, as well as the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox Web browser, Skype Ltd.'s free voice-over-IP software and the OpenOffice.org alternative to Microsoft Office.' Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming, as discussed earlier on Slashdot."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If it won't work with what you need... (5, Insightful)

pudding7 (584715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113168)

...then don't use it.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (5, Insightful)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113232)

Exactly.

I have heard statements like "If only Mac has this and that software, I would switch in a second" or "If only Linux has more games, I would leave Windows forever".

So now that Windows doesn't have support for this and that software, it has given users a chance to revisit those statements above and make a decision.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113824)

Here's a list of Linux-applications that are ready for the desktop (RFTD):

So now that Windows doesn't have support for this and that software, it has given users a chance to revisit those statements above and make a decision.

Haha, no, asshat.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113238)

Yup. I guess all those graphics professionals who need to upgrade will have to either find a machine that still comes with XP or get a Mac. All those people who need OpenOffice or Mozilla will have to stick with XP or move to *NIX.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (1)

zxnos (813588) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113608)

graphics professionals who need to upgrade will have to either find a machine that still comes with XP or get a Mac.

i have yet to meet a graphics professional (layouts, artwork, modeling, etc.) who doesnt use a mac. in my non-uber techie opinion, 800 apps is a lot to officially support. lastly, i have used firefox on a mac and am fairly certain that open office and thunderbird are on mac too.

hopefully my humordar isnt broken as i am a bit sleep deprived... :)

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114096)

i have yet to meet a graphics professional (layouts, artwork, modeling, etc.) who doesnt use a mac.

Interesting, almost every one of them I talked to uses a PC with Macs being about as common as they are with the general populace. Software like 3D Studio MAX or Mudbox doesn't come in Mac flavour at all.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (3, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113684)

Heh. I'm trying to imagine graphics professionals that aren't using Mac's already, and I'm failing.

We have maybe 50 Photoshop licenses where I work, and about the same number of Quark licenses. Bunch of different versions of Acrobat. I think, out of those three pieces of software, we have maybe 4 Windows software licenses, and the photoshop install media has been sitting in my desk drawer for more than a year without anyone asking for it.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113836)

will have to either find a machine that still comes with XP

I know one company that still recommends buying laptops from Dell who currently only ship with Vista preinstalled, even though the software they make doesn't yet run on Vista. They recommend users buy a retail copy of XP and install it over Vista. (They also make a version of the software for Linux, yet do not suggest installing Linux over Vista.)

or get a Mac.

They also won't support running their software on XP installed on an Intel Mac.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (1)

H8X55 (650339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114044)

Compatibility != Certified

Vista **does** work fine (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113282)

Wel from MS's perspective anyway. The main purpose of Vista is to generate huge piles of income and revitalising interest to keep MS "fresh" in the eyes of the investors.

Re:Vista **does** work fine (4, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113878)

Which brings one to the conclusion that you(*), the purchaser of Microsoft products are not the customer. The shareholder is the customer.

You are the product.

(*) - That's "you" in a general sense. I in no way mean to accuse you personally of actually purchasing said software.

What does Microsoft really have? (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114192)

Parent is utterly correct. The people that buy MS products are not the customers, they are Microsoft assets.

What does Microsoft have? They have market share (ie. a customer base). They don't have particularly innovative or high quality software products/services and their revenues are largely independent of their offerings. They have you (*). They just have to keep finding ways to repackage you (*) to keep generating income. If MS didn't make Vista, they'd keep selling XP. However, it is very hard to keep dishing up left overs and still keep a straight face. Vista is a statement more than a product.

Re:Vista **does** work fine (2, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114284)

How does Microsoft profit from its stock price?

Who says it doesn't work??? (5, Insightful)

moronikos (595352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113660)

Hell, they all probably work. Firefox sure does. They just haven't been certified. The certification process takes a while and you have to pay for it. Microsoft sets the requirements and some 3rd party company administers it. After the 3rd party company has certified your product, then you can put the Vista (or XP) logo on your product. You also get listed on Microsoft's web site as having a certified product. Not being on the list means you either 1) haven't bothered to be certified, or 2) you failed certification. It doesn't mean the software doesn't run on that platform.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (1)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113686)

And that's what happened. I did a backup of my PC at work, did the upgrade, and it broke Business Vision, our accounting software.

The funny part is, a quick jump to the business vision website didn't even mention anything about Vista.

Anyway, a (not so quick) restore, and things are back where they were before.

It also broke too much of my hardware, including the MS finger print reader and my printer, so, unfortunately, no go for me.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (2, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113778)

I'm still shocked when I see forum and blog posts that sound like this:

"Vista is awsome! I absolutely love it!

But I can't run this app, or that app, and my favorite game won't run on it.

Vista rocks!"

How can you like an OS that doesn't run your applications? That's its sole purpose in life! If it supports every app you need, then go ahead and love it. But if it doesn't run something you find critical then it's useless to you.

Re:If it won't work with what you need... (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114062)

Were those real people posting the blog posts you saw, or shills? Never underestimate the power of fanbois to delude each other, no matter what the subject is.

Suprised? (2, Insightful)

livewire98801 (916940) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113188)

Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.

Compatibility Issues? (2, Informative)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113356)

I use Firefox all the time on Vista and it works as well as anything. I would have been surprised to see it "Certified" by Microsoft, though. I have OpenOffice installed, but I barely use it on that machine. OO Writer doesn't have any problems opening, at least. I really haven't had any problems with iTunes, other than the issue where if I use the Windows utility to Stop/Remove the iPod instead of ejecting it in iTunes, the next time I plug it into that machine, Windows tells me its hard drive may have a problem. I haven't noticed any problems with any of my files on it, though.

I agree that the surprising part of TFA was the software that did make the list. The Google Desktop Search as you mentioned, as well as WordPerfect and some others. But then I guess they have to be able to show that some (a carefully selected portion?) of their competitors' apps can run, otherwise they don't get the privilege of saying that Vista can run all of this software you use that Mac/Linux can't. I don't think MS feels very threatened by WordPerfect, so it's OK to throw them on the list.

Re:Compatibility Issues? (1)

malfunct (120790) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113988)

I don't think that Microsoft is the driver of the certification. They will run a set of tests on the software for a company if that company allows them and possibly pays them. I think its just as likely that Adobe ect hasn't spent the time to go through certification yet as it is that Microsoft has some secret list of people they are not going to certify in order to prevent competition.

Looking at how Adobe dealt with the move to intel processors for Mac computers I think that its highly likely that the next big revision of each of those pieces of software will be acompanied with a windows vista certification.

Re:Suprised? (1, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113364)

That explains Firefox...

Adobe: Crashybloatware. Ever time Acrobat reader comes up on any of my computers, I always worry about if it'll crash and burn (it doesn't take the OS with it, but it usually brings down associated apps like firefox). I use Corel Photopaint myself instead of Photoshop, *MUCH* faster.

Norton: One of three applications I've used in the past 5 years that has crashed windows (ignoring a bad SATA controler, which crashed windows, but was hardly windows' fault). It's also the only set up applications that /isnt/ a game.

Firefox: Ok, yeah, it's competition which is probably the main reason, but it's also worse than IE (since FF 1.5) in memory leaks. I still prefer it for security reasons though. 3 FireFox

Skype: never used it, but I can see the competition angle.

OOO: Yeah, definetly anticompetative here. If it were still the old Star Office 5, I would say it's crapware, but OOO is actually good.

Games: WTF, most games are rather poorly programmed, if you look at the bugs and crashes in them. Rarely have I seen a well programmed game.

Re:Suprised? (1)

Vraylle (610820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113752)

I completely agree about Adobe reader. A post here a few days ago suggested Foxit Reader [foxitsoftware.com] . I've been pretty happy with it, and it seems very stable.

Playing with Lists (1)

yintercept (517362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113442)

Conversely, I would not be surprised if competitors really do not want to be on "the list."

Apparently, this list requires some sort of Microsoft certification. You probably have to pay Microsoft or buy Microsoft products. I can see why competitors would want to avoid that. If my software company already had a well known brand and a decent reputation for reliability, I might want find it more advantageous to be on the conspicuously missing list.

I would only want to be on "The List" if there was an immediate advantage. Being off the list shows independent thinking.

BTW: The same thing happens in politics. Candidates are generally reluctant to get endorsements from a president during the president's later terms. Politicians want to be on the list of rising stars, but are wise to show some independence from those that are in power.

Re:Playing with Lists (1)

Baboshka (15952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113474)

You have to pay an 'independent lab' to do the testing and submit an application signature to make the list.

Re:Playing with Lists (1)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114228)

...and the 'independent lab' reports any particularly innovative or useful features back to Microsoft for them to "reverse engineer" and incorporate into their own products to preserve their competitive advantage?

No conspiracy, move along... (3, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114128)

Microsoft isn't certifying the most popular competitors to it's own software. Pardon me if I don't appear shocked. I was a bit suprised to see Google's desktop search made the list though.

I don't think that's it - I think it's just a rubber-stamp list of whoever signed up, paid their fee, and jumped through the hoops. If they were excluding competitors, I really don't think Google Toolbar would have made the list.

Re:Suprised? (1)

MattPat (852615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114258)

Well, I'm not too surprised... Google's Desktop Search does, in a way, compete with their own Spotlight... errr... Windows' built-in fast searching tools. :)

Re:Suprised? (3, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114318)

Certifying Firefox would be pointless anyway, a certificate would be good only for a specific build and one patch would mess that up again.

RTFA (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113202)

From TFA:

There are many applications that are compatible and work well with Windows Vista but that are not listed in this article. This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program.


Has the Mozilla Foundation or OO.org submitted an application to undergo the testing program? Probably not.

This list is just the programs that are allowed to put that official Microsoft logo on the box that says the program will work with Windows. It doesn't mean that programs whose developers haven't bothered to go through the testing program aren't going to work in Vista.

Re:RTFA (1, Insightful)

Hymer (856453) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113298)

Then I f***ing hope that THIS time Microsoft DO require apps to obey Windows security model to get that f***ing logo... and that they DO something against those manufacturers who put a Windows logo without testing.

Re:RTFA (3, Insightful)

Undertaker43017 (586306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113318)

Exactly! This is simply a "branding" program by MS, pay them money, run their tests, pass their tests, and you can put their logo on your product.

Must be a slow news day...

Not Slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113598)

News today isn't about what's new, it's about profit. /. and others (with the alphabelt groups and their Anna/Britney coverage) are interested in the commercial/advertisements inbetween whatever keeps you watching.

Not a slow news day (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113734)

Just an excuse to hate on Vista which is something pretty popular here. It seems there are lots of people who are just plain scared that Vista will be a success. They are worried it will end up being a good OS and lots of people will use it. So they end up grasping at any straw they can get. Anything that can be spun as negative, they do, hoping that it will shun people away from Vista.

I think you can expect to see lots more of it for many months to come on sites like Slashdot.

Re:Not a slow news day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113776)

Who needs an excuse to hate on Vista when all it takes is just using it?

Re:Not a slow news day (2, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113914)

The intent isn't to shun people from using Vista. It's to get eyeballs and therefore advertising dollars. The editors here at /. don't care if you run Vista. Most bloggers don't care if you run Vista. But a well written post bashing Vista gets spread around. News corporations make a lot more money reporting negative news than positive news. It grabs more attention.

Re:RTFA (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113360)

Is there a fee involved to get the certification? Does it involve signing any gag-order like non disclosure agreement? Does MS pledge not to share any info it gets during the certification process with the submitter's competitors?

If the Fortune 500 companies chip in 100K each, you will have 50 million $ funding to establish a completely vendor neutral certifying agency/institute that will offer True Interoperability instead of the short sighted Microsoft Compatibility. But expecting corporate America to think beyond the next quarter's 10-K form to SEC is too much, I guess.

This is a non-story? (5, Insightful)

MyNameIsEarl (917015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113208)

Doesn't this just mean that if you can't get an Adobe product to work on Vista you need to go to Adobe as you would under any other OS? Why should MS need to help you make an Adobe product work on their OS, Adobe should be the ones making it work. I use Adobe as my example so the Open Source fans don't get in an uproar about MS keeping the competition down (not that they aren't, but I don't feel they are here).

Re:This is a non-story? (2, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113726)

Why should MS need to help you make an Adobe product work on their OS

Well, they don't have to initially - except that it would be in their interest if they didn't have a monopoly on desktop OS. But once the initial port is done, they do have a responsibility to customers who updated with an expectation of backward compatibility. Especially if the Adobe products in question are certified on XP or the previous OS is no longer available on most new PCs.

Who's surprised? (1)

zyl0x (987342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113220)

I'm not surprised to see OpenOffice and FireFox missing from that list. MS should be doing the work to get all these apps to run on their OS, but I can clearly see why they don't care about those two pieces. But Adobe Photoshop?? What's wrong with them? Are they purposefully trying to herd the remaining Windows-artists to Macs? What a stupid move.

Re:Who's surprised? (3, Interesting)

livewire98801 (916940) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113274)

From TFA:

Adobe, which will face competition from Microsoft this year when Microsoft releases its Expression suite of graphics and multimedia design tools, did not immediately return a request to comment.

Re:Who's surprised? (0, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113286)

But Adobe Photoshop?? What's wrong with them? Are they purposefully trying to herd the remaining Windows-artists to Macs? What a stupid move.

I recognize the important of Photoshop as well, but I also realize that Adobe couldn't code their way out of a wet bag made out of facial tissue. Their software is unreliable crap, pretty much across the board. Photoshop is the least-fucked-over of all their applications (because it is their bread, butter, breadbox, counter, and house) but it's been going sharply downhill of late.

Adobe is also way the hell behind in Mac land. Where's the Universal (or just intel) binaries?

The simple answer to all of this is that Adobe is in complete disarray and doesn't know what the hell they are doing. They are quite simply falling directly on their ass in every market. If there were any respectable competition, they would be gone yesterday.

Re:Who's surprised? (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113468)

Although I'm not quite as down on Adobe as you are, I agree that their quality has been on a steady downhill slide ever since the original guys sold out and the marketers took over. Illustrator is the only program I've run into which can lock OS X up solid.

That aside, there's only one company which produces crappier code than Adobe, and that's Microsoft. I look forward to the steaming pile of shit Microsoft will shovel into all those boxes marked "Expression" in the same way I look forward to someone running down a hallway, headed towards a banana peel.

Re:Who's surprised? (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113624)

Illustrator is the only program I've run into which can lock OS X up solid.

You're not using InDesign enough, or using it hard enough. It can do it too.

I've also had Illustrator not totally lock up OSX, but lock it up enough to where all I can do is move the beach ball around the screen and swear.

That aside, there's only one company which produces crappier code than Adobe, and that's Microsoft. I look forward to the steaming pile of shit Microsoft will shovel into all those boxes marked "Expression" in the same way I look forward to someone running down a hallway, headed towards a banana peel.

I agree with your sentiment, but you're forgetting about Corel. Corel Draw is/was the biggest pile of crap EVAR in terms of reliability.

Re:Who's surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113324)

Again, why should it be MS's responsibility to make sure that ALL software has the proper drivers to function with it's OS. The developers of these programs have had ample time to get ther products Vista ready.

Re:Who's surprised? (2, Insightful)

David Horn (772985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113354)

Why should MS be doing the work? All that list refers to is the list of applications submitted to Microsoft's "Designed for Windows" logo program. The onus is on Mozilla and Adobe to submit their software, not Microsoft to try to include everything.

FireFox works perfectly in Vista, so does Acrobat Reader. Photoshop doesn't, and drops the system into compatibility mode. Is this really Microsoft's fault?

Re:Who's surprised? (2, Informative)

zxnos (813588) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113744)

shhh, you are not allowed to insert logic and reason into an anti-ms thread. a pox on you and your family. :)

Re:Who's surprised? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114030)

Photoshop doesn't, and drops the system into compatibility mode.

It does what? Not on my system, unless I'm missing something. Aero continues to function, no noticeable performance change with CS2 9.0.2.

Re:Who's surprised? (2, Informative)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113622)

It's not Microsoft's responsibility to make other people's software run on their OS. Obviously it's their responsibility to a fair market to not deliberately hinder other developers' software in favour of their own, and of course it is in Microsoft's best interests for the most part to make Windows as backwards compatible as possible (there's no point having a decade of software compatability lock-in only to throw it away for nothing).

But of course a new OS will create compatability issues, and frankly many of the compatability issues with Vista are because of progressive things (eg. involving stopping use of the registry, forcing the proper use of user folders). It's the software developers' responsibility to make sure that those areas are covered, and frankly with the open way in which Vista was Beta'd no developers have an excuse for not being ready.

Lack of OO.o not surprising (0, Redundant)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113224)

. . . lack of Illustrator, Photoshop, Premiere, etc. very surprising.

Re:Lack of OO.o not surprising (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113430)

Not really Adobe has yet to update photoshop of Intel Mac's. Why would vista be any different? They might be working on it now. That's not to say it won't run it just won't run well.

It seems odd and yet not that no one has Vista read apps yet every one has known about vista for years.

Of course most were probably expecting MSFT to delay vista again and figured they had more time.

Calc.exe and sol.exe are also still to be ported (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113236)

They are promised for the upcoming minus pack for vista.

Re:Calc.exe and sol.exe are also still to be porte (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113560)

I know it was just a joke, but it doesn't quite work... Apparently you haven't seen the new solitaire. For the first time since Win 3.0 (at least), they've changed the look of sol.

Calc is still the same, though.

Carry on, carry on.

Re:Calc.exe and sol.exe are also still to be porte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113896)

Have you seen what they did to Sound Recorder though? It's now just a "rec" button. It records sound, nothing else! No playback, no simple editing no wave display!

So all those missing apps... (2, Informative)

EvilSS (557649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113248)

...were submitted for "Windows Vista" logo certification? If not, then, uh, what the hell is the point of this article? If you look at the title of the page linked to, it clearly says 'Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo'. From further down:

"The tables in the "More Information" section list the products that currently have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo. There are many applications that are compatible and work well with Windows Vista but that are not listed in this article. This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program."

So I guess we should blame adobe, firefox, etc. for not being on the ball and submitting their apps? Is that the point of this article? Or just more VistaFud(TM)

Re:So all those missing apps... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113340)

It's not free to submit them

Re:So all those missing apps... (1)

EvilSS (557649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113366)

So?

Re:So all those missing apps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113484)

So?

So what's the delay with your generous grant to pay for the certification? You really dropped the ball on this one...

Re:So all those missing apps... (1)

EvilSS (557649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113642)

Why should I pay? I don't care if FireFox has Windows Logo certification. PetManimal must, since he went to the trouble to submit the article. Logo certification has no bearing at all on an application's ability to run under Vista, so personally I don't care if some app lacks it. So hit PetManimal up for the money since he seems so distraught about it.

Re:So all those missing apps... (2, Informative)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113568)

Agreed, this is sensationalist, more anti-Vista FUD. I hate Vista as much as most here, but there's no need to lie. There are plenty of valid reasons why it's an awful operating system [auckland.ac.nz] that can be used; why invent new ones that don't exist?

This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program.

As a Linux user I'd be annoyed if I went to the OpenOffice or Firefox website and found one of those ghastly: 'Designed for Windows Vista' logos staring back at me.

Re:So all those missing apps... (1)

spwolfx (1029734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113916)

you are making sense, but thats not what /. readers are all about... lets bash some MS for Adobe not going through FREE Certification process (MS is paying for it until June)...

Typical big business practice (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113250)

A lot of decision makers don't have any clue about what Vista is precisely and what it will do to their business. They just get a visit from their Microsoft rep. and decide something based on that. If the program is not on the list, it's not 'approved by Microsoft' and thus it will not get used by the customer on that basis.

I wish there were more smart people (or people that know something about computers) are in the places where those decisions get made in companies. We wouldn't have a Microsoft monopoly now.

hmmm (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113252)

'Popular Windows software that is conspicuously missing from Microsoft's list includes Adobe Systems Inc.'s entire line of graphics and multimedia software,

That's not surprising. According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the PC.

Re:hmmm (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113490)

According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the PC.

I wish that were true. Sadly, Adobe has several products for which they have dropped the Mac version completely (like Framemaker, where prior to this decision is accounted for 60% of their market). In my experience a lot of Adobe products are held back because they take care to keep them as close on Windows and the Mac as possible, meaning they ignore most of the really cool features of OS X that MS has not yet copied on Windows.

With Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia, MS decided it was time to take action. They have already started leveraging their monopoly to cut into Adobe's markets and will be doing so with increasing regularity. Adobe now has to choose whether to try to "negotiate" with MS, which insures short term profits but will kill them in the long term unless something changes, or if they are going to play hardball and throw their weight behind OS X and Linux in order to gain a better bargaining position.

Re:hmmm (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113846)

In my experience a lot of Adobe products are held back because they take care to keep them as close on Windows and the Mac as possible, meaning they ignore most of the really cool features of OS X that MS has not yet copied on Windows.

Would you care to explain what functionality useful to any Adobe application is present on OSX and not present on Windows XP?

Adobe now has to choose whether to try to "negotiate" with MS, which insures short term profits but will kill them in the long term unless something changes, or if they are going to play hardball and throw their weight behind OS X and Linux in order to gain a better bargaining position.

Adobe is not going to start putting commercial apps on Linux any time soon. It is a support nightmare for a company like Adobe that has to support complete idiots. I don't want to insult any technically literate graphics people, but all two of you will just have to suck it up when I say that practically no artist types know thing fucking one about a computer. Most of you who think you do actually know jack diddly shit. Again, note that I realize that this is not universal. I am employed as a graphic artist (I will freely admit I am not a very good one) and I definitely know some things about computers. A lot of things, in fact.

But most artists need to pay someone like me to do even simple things like hardware upgrades, in spite of the fact that you can only plug a DIMM in one way...

Re:hmmm (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114166)

Would you care to explain what functionality useful to any Adobe application is present on OSX and not present on Windows XP?

Sure. Adobe apps generally ignore system services and do not use that mechanism to share functionality between Adobe apps, instead implementing their own, limited variant that clones the behavior on Windows. As a result, Adobe apps waste the resources needed to duplicate functionality implemented by Adobe apps and other apps as well. They ignore even the default Apple included services like the dictionary/thesaurus service.

Adobe ignores most of the core graphics APIs that make it trivial for me to do something like add a watermark to every page of a PDF in a small shareware app, but which is still very hard to do to an existing PDF with any of Adobe's tools. It also limits the OS's ability to automatically take more advantage of multiple processors for OpenGL operations that are CPU intensive.

Adobe apps tend to ignore the capable command line in OS X as much as possible, including stdout, limiting the use of Adobe apps in scripted workflows and automation, instead relying entirely upon input from the GUI, except where Adobe did not consider it at all and the system automatically lets you do things. I can pipe data to Photoshop, for example, but Adobe had nothing to do with that.

Adobe is not going to start putting commercial apps on Linux any time soon. It is a support nightmare for a company like Adobe that has to support complete idiots.

Adobe has had Linux and even Solaris versions of some of their applications in the past, but cancelled them to focus on Windows. They've cancelled even Mac versions of some of their software. I don't think this has anything to do with support costs.

...I say that practically no artist types know thing fucking one about a computer.

There is one glaring problem with this statement. You're assuming Adobe's users are graphics people. Half the user base of Framemaker migrated from LaTeX. Dreamweaver is the favored Web development application of some pretty hard core nerds. Your generalizations are uninformed.

...But most artists need to pay someone like me to do even simple things like hardware upgrades...

So you think this is argument against Adobe supporting OS X more? From where I'm sitting OS X is easier to use than windows and has more technically un-inclined graphics people. Adobe expanding support for the Mac and other platforms like Linux as well for certain apps, is a great way to put pressure on MS by facilitating the weakening of their core monopoly.

Re:hmmm (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113790)

That's not surprising. According to the design department over here, Adobe products aren't even made for the P

How ironic then, that the Windows version of their software frequently has features the Mac version doesn't.

Until recently, Premiere Pro was not available for Mac. Adobe Audition is not available on Mac.

Adobe Flex is not available on Mac.

Of course designers don't care about facts, they're creative people.

Re:hmmm (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113936)

How ironic then, that the Windows version of their software frequently has features the Mac version doesn't.

Dude, it was a joke... seriously. Everyone knows PCs work great for design. :)

Non-story. (4, Interesting)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113258)

This is a non-story, sensational only in its attempt to stir up a hornet's nest. (But this is Slashdot, so why am I surprised?)

There's no story here. There is some vague hint in the summary that Microsoft is purposefully not certifying software, but this is a vague and unsupported claim at best. The only real claim that can be made is that some software is not on the list... and so what? There are dozens of reasons. The software could A) not work with Vista, b) not have been submitted for testing, C) be in the process of going through the process...

What's the point? As another poster said, if it doesn't work, don't use it.

Another area in which Vista has found to be lackin (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113260)

Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming


Or visa versa...it sounds like each of software vendors mentioned has some work to do to get up to snuff. It's not like Vista has been some great surprise; beta and then release candidate copies have been available for months.

Wait for SP1 (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113264)

Oh course Vista is a turd now, like every other Microsoft release. Which is why anyone with a lick of sense waits until the first service pack before deploying. Then it will only suck, but that is about as good as Microsoft knows how to make a product so those stuck on Windows have learned to live with that level of pain.

Of course ya just gotta feel sorry for the poor schmucks who buy a new namebrand PC between the release of Vista and SP1 since they don't get a choice. Which is just one more reason why only the uneducated masses buy a namebrand PC.

Re:Wait for SP1 (1)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113542)

SP1 is supposed to come out a few months from now. This means Vista is in a far worse state than when XP was released. SP1 will only bring Vista up to the level of XP at initial release. My workplace has already decided to wait for SP2 before any deployment.

Re:Wait for SP1 (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113806)

Eh, it's not so bad. I haven't found anything that doesn't work, as of yet. Of course, everything will work much better when "official" Vista versions come out, especially considering all of the under-the-covers changes (drivers, etc.), but for right now, for home use, I haven't run into any show stoppers. I can tell ya, though... if Sid Meier's Pirates! didn't run on my GF's new Vista laptop, she would've sent that thing back faster than you can say "Vista!".

Re:Wait for SP1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114354)

DogDick, you don't have a girlfriend. You have a terribly molested cockapoo. And "giving your dog a bone" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Errh.... (1)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113276)

So... is this 'dir system32\*.exe'...?

I love the irony when people claim that the GIMP is not enough because they need Photoshop, and how Jabber clients will never achieve Skype's level of voice transmission quality.

I don't want to imagine what would everybody say if a new Linux distro stopped supporting some of the most used software in the world...

Adobe never surprises (2, Interesting)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113292)

They've footdragged so much on getting universal binary versions of their software to operate on Intel, that I'm not surprised in the least that they'd also foot-drag on Vista-savvy versions of their software. In an interesting turnabout, the fastest native version of their software (for the remainder of the year) - might be - be OSX for Intel - if the damn thing is released for the Mac users by summer.

Actually I'd be surprised if Adobe's stuff isn't usable in Vista as-is. It's probably just a marketing spat between the two insofar that Adobe wasn't going to commit itself to being "Vista Ready" when Microsoft sent out the promotional packets.

Vista has found to be lacking (1)

JensenDied (1009293) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113304)

Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming
Wasn't DX10 supposed to be this new big thing and there was to be loads of games made for it... where are they now?

at least the games run under Linux with wine

Makes sense.. (1)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113310)

Because I don't see Mozilla coughing up the $10K it takes to get an app tested to be "Vista certified"..
(I really wonder how much value for the money developers get from this.. and how much is pure profit for MS..)

Re:Makes sense.. (1)

wynler (678277) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113504)

Vista Certification is nowhere near $10K.  MS was actually offering a free certification program prior to the release of Vista.

Re:Makes sense.. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113934)

The real issue here is that you need an application signature. Mozilla would have to get a new signature (with accompanying testing) every time a point release came out. Even if it's free, it would delay releases to an unacceptable degree.

Firefox isn't officially supported on Vista yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113322)

Firefox isn't officially supported on Vista. No really, it isn't. There are a few things that don't completely work, like setting the default browser etc. See the depandancies of bug 369465 (at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36946 5 [mozilla.org] but they block Slashdot referers) if you don't believe me. Version 2.0.0.2, due in a matter of days, will be the first fully Vista compatible release.

Re:Firefox isn't officially supported on Vista yet (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114146)

Huh? My laptop set FF quite happily as the default browser upon installation. Quite happily and transparently.

Vista Upgrade Advisor (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113332)

Here's an interesting mention on the "Works with Windows Vista" list:
* Microsoft Corporation - Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor - 1.0.1

The Vista Upgrade Advisor isn't "Certified for Windows Vista" ... but it is listed twice under "Works with Windows Vista".

FUD (1)

Baboshka (15952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113408)

The title of the linked KB article is:

Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo
and the line taken from context is: These applications are officially supported on Windows Vista by our independent software vendor (ISV) partners. (emphasized part seems to be missing from the story) I would guess that the owners of the programs you don't see on the list didn't go through the logo process. The process for the "Works With Windows Vista" [mrmpslc.com] and "Certified For Windows Vista" [mrmpslc.com] can be found here. I know it cost $$ (hundreds I believe) to get the Works With but I MS was even offering to pay for the tests early on. Certified For is more expensive.

As Predicted (0, Flamebait)

thrashee (1066650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113464)

What's more surprising? That ./ has another article bashing Vista, or how quickly the ./'rs come out of the woodwork in typical self-congratulatory style to bemoan their agreements? Give Vista another 3 months and all the programs listed in this article will be compatible, and this thread will be a moot point. Instead of continuously blaming Windows and Microsoft, why don't you turn your attention towards the third-party companies that have had ample time to prepare for Vista and yet come launch date, are still fumbling around with betas. Perhaps if Apple had spent more energy on updating ITunes rather than poking fun at nag screens, they wouldn't be asking folks to postpone upgrading.

Re:As Predicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113970)

Wouldn't you know it. You get flamebait for making the most reasonable post here. Slashdot would be a real resource if it stuck to technical issues and stayed out of politics, where it has no expertise except the inflated egos of the clueless.

Re:As Predicted (1)

thrashee (1066650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114114)

Thank you sir (or madam), for being another voice of reason in this sea of chaos.

Never... (1, Flamebait)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113540)

The article would have us believe that Microsoft is using its monopoly position to do harm to its competitors but we all know that Microsoft is above that sort of thing. (Checks nose for increase in length.)

Lacking in gaming... (5, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113618)

Another area in which Vista has found to be lacking is gaming...

And people still claim Vista's not an OS X ripoff. What more proof do you need?

Gotta say..... (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113730)

Leopard is looking better everyday. I know it's often troll bait to compare the two but before Vista went wide we were all told it was going to blow Leopard away and Leopard was just a knock off. Now that it's out it's slower, the new security heavily depends on you manually authorizing actions and there aren't many new features. Oh and it's a memory hog. Now we find that they left out support for software I'd say 99% of us use, as in everyone here is likely to use at least one software that isn't properly supported. Curious how much is competing software? Late last year I made a hard decision to stick with Windows but Vista has made me rethink that descision. I'm planning to pick up some remaining copies of XP to have on hand then dual booting Macs to get me by the dark ages here until the mess gets sorted out. Apples best friend right now may be Vista. It may not be the disaster ME was but it does look messy given the long development cycle. Microsoft seems to have made a lot of decisions based on benefiting them and taken the stance they'll use it because what choice do they have? Well the choice is Mac. I'm not normally a Mac fan but I'm becoming one.

Re:Gotta say..... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113880)

Now we find that they left out support for software I'd say 99% of us use, as in everyone here is likely to use at least one software that isn't properly supported.

You are either ignorant or shilling. They didn't leave out support. They simply didn't certify the software in question. They simply would not release XP if Firefox and Adobe apps didn't run. The latter is because Adobe apps are horribly important to the world of business and if that stuff didn't work on Vista a lot of people would be buying a lot of macs. The former is because a million angry OSS fanboys would descend on redmond like a plague of locusts, and the smell would be horrible.

I guess I need to throw out all my games... (1)

shoolz (752000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113808)

...because StarForce isn't on that list.

Linux.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18113850)

I refuse to use popular distributions of Linux because the developers clearly haven't put any effort into making my Windows software natively compatible.

What were they thinking?

Grain of salt (2, Informative)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18113998)

I don't consider that a reliable list. Firefox works great on Vista. I don't know about any of the other products except Symantic, which doesn't really work on XP.

Microsoft's Authentic Software... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114010)

..should be enough for anyone.

How is this Microsoft's fault? (2, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18114048)

They put out the OS, it is up to the software vendors to make sure their software works with the OS. They knew it was coming and certainly had the time. Also, as others have pointed out, this is just a seal of approval program and doesn't mean the software won't run in vista.

OMFG Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor works on Vista! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114182)

Vista for teh Win!

800 is greater than 640 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114218)

Certainly 640 applications is enough for anybody!

Another noticable absence.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18114240)

Clippy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?