×

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!

Vista SP1 Is Even Less Compatible

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the preemptive-diasabling dept.

Windows 278

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Microsoft is now saying that Vista SP1 disables some 3rd party applications. The KB article on SP1 incompatibility states: 'For reliability reasons, Microsoft blocks these programs from starting after you install Windows Vista SP1.' It does link to several vendor support pages with updates or workarounds. Unfortunately, at least one of the suggestions consists of merely disabling part of the program, which could leave you with half an anti-virus solution."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

278 comments

AntiTrust concerns? (1, Insightful)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527878)

Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah [slashdot.org] , nice. New OS, same old Microsoft.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (5, Insightful)

hedronist (233240) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527968)

I know this is /., but please RTFA.

All the vendors mentioned (ironically, with the exception of Novell) already have fixes/workarounds either ready or in progress.

I kind of doubt there are any antitrust implications when MS contacts the affected vendors in advance. TFA even notes that "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors."

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Interesting)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528058)

AV vendors have been claiming antitrust for eight months. SP1 causes great inconvenience to their customers, what a suspicious coincidence. If the vendors were really cooperating SP1 would have contained their improvements, not a little note or a lock out.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Insightful)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528074)

Seeing that SP1 is not even released to public on the windows update stage yet, is it not entirely probable that the companies in question will have patches by the time its the version-de-jour?

I see how there can be an issue, but where is the issue YET?

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528108)

Exactly. It's for this very reason public betas/RCs are given out... for devs to make sure their software will work with the final release and to give them time to fix and test.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528518)

Exactly. It's for this very reason public betas/RCs are given out... for devs to make sure their software will work with the final release and to give them time to fix and test.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't Microsoft fix their OS so it doesn't break the software everyone's already using?

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528602)

Shouldn't Linux not break their ABI with every new kernel release?

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (5, Insightful)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528616)

Not if the functionality being used by said software was insecure or bugged to begin with.

Now, if the AV companies legitimately do NOT have enough time before SP1 is pushed to the public, then I could see getting up in arms.

Otherwise, isnt this just common sense? Fix whats insecure and broken, advise the third parties of the changes, then release after a suitable dev delay?

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (5, Insightful)

Myen (734499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528622)

MS should try, yes, but sometimes the existing software just has bugs (i.e. violates what the API says you should do). It previously worked if the OS had matching bugs that made it work.

Kinda like how people who write web pages by testing with IE and seeing it broken in Firefox etc. because the app they tested with wasn't quite obeying the standards, really...

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Insightful)

Derosian (943622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528760)

When I was younger in a moment of anger at Microsoft I once exclaimed "I'm gonna write my own O/S one without any bugs at all!" to which my friend sagely replied, "So your not gonna let anyone write any software for it?" This is something to think about.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528252)

AV vendors have been claiming antitrust for eight months. SP1 causes great inconvenience to their customers, what a suspicious coincidence.

Yarrr, evil M$ conspiracy to take over the world with Windoze! Oh, wait. Been there, done that...

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528672)

Yes, the antivirus vendors bitched when Vista was released because, particularly in Vista x64, they were locked out from fucking with the kernel. This was done for security reasons and if anyone but Microsoft did it this would be considered good practice. Microsoft listened and decided that in Vista SP1 they would provide an API through which the antivirus vendors could explicitly perform the actions they wished to perform at the kernel level.

So, Microsoft listened to the complaint and fixed it which requires that the antivirus companies change their programs to adhere to the published API. Exactly what is the problem again?

Oh yeah, Slashdot. You have to complain otherwise people might notice that you're 45 and still living in your parents' basement.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (1, Troll)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528618)

I know this is /., but please RTFA.

All the vendors mentioned (ironically, with the exception of Novell) already have fixes/workarounds either ready or in progress.

I kind of doubt there are any antitrust implications when MS contacts the affected vendors in advance. TFA even notes that "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors."

So, you see no antitrust implications when the vendors already had to modify code just to get it to work on Vista's initial release (with much of the pertinent data not being given to them till the last minute, meaning no time to update CDs... like Symantec who had to put files online for tech shops and customers to download while they changed their RTMs to match due to lack of time), followed by a SP that disables their software - yet again - leaving only MS as the working alternative, with again too little time to have updates available to end users except for too late after the fact?

That to me smells of anti-trust. As for "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors." - what consent does it imply? "We're changing things... too bad... you have to modify your code again if you want it to work - it's either that, or your product wont run on Vista SP1. OK?" - "Uh... OK... since our choices are (a) it wont work and we lose our customer base or (b) we modify the code."

If you call that consent... c'mon. It's like a thief with a gun telling you "I'll shoot you if you don't give me all the money in your pockets... but I'd settle for half of it and just beat you up a bit... do you consent to me just beating you up a bit for half the money in your pockets?" - "Ummm... sure" - the only things they consented to was being stuck without any choice requiring them update their software - or it wouldnt work. Consent != extortion... and this borders on extortion.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (2, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528020)

Why does the whole Vista mess remind me of the end of a Benny Hill episode? They need to use the Ubuntu release cycle for a bit so people can move on to Vista +1.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (1)

computrius (1153141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528744)

What do you think the service packs are? There really arent enough changes with each ubuntu release to be called anything but a service pack. Hell, we are pretty much using Ubuntu 1.0 service pack 4,283 :)

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528038)

Mod parent up!

For those who don't follow the links, the important bit in this story is that Microsoft is blocking third-party security software. They're breaking basically all anti-virus software that isn't Windows Defender and all firewall software that isn't Windows Firewall.

This is clearly monopoly abuse, and hopefully Microsoft will get smacked down for it. Not that I honestly expect that to happen, the current administration certainly won't and none of the current candidates would. But, hey, we can dream.

Re:AntiTrust concerns? (4, Informative)

LocoSpitz (175100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528492)

Mod parent down -- and you too. Since you clearly did not take your own advice and follow the links, let me help you out with the facts. The blocked software was blocked with vendor approval. Microsoft's KB article includes links to download current, working versions of affected software.

miserable failure (0, Redundant)

screamphilling (1173499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527908)

miserable failure

Yeah, so much for MS's new strategy (2, Funny)

fsckr (965056) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527998)

And I quote:
Microsoft's New Leaf On Interoperability [slashdot.org]

Microsoft has made a major announcement about interoperating with others...

Re:Yeah, so much for MS's new strategy (2, Funny)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528116)

"For reliability reasons, Microsoft blocks these programs from starting after you install Windows Vista SP1," according to the article, which notes this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors.

So they really are interoperating. They told them they needed to fix something and the vendors agreed.

Re:miserable failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528288)

True != Redundant.

Increased security. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22527910)

Does Vista really need anti-virus software anyway?

Re:Increased security. (5, Insightful)

Atti K. (1169503) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527936)

Does anybody need Vista anyway?

Re:Increased security. (1)

Mex (191941) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528678)

No, but most vendors sell new machines with it. I know Dell supposedly sells PCs with Ubuntu and XP, but I'm in Mexico and they only offer Vista on new PCs.

I plan to try Vista but I'll most likely end up replacing it with XP, I have some custom software that I need and it doesn't run on Vista.

Re:Increased security. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528118)

Who said software? Vista comes with a small bottle labeled "anti-virus solution, 0.5 mol/L".

Blocks or warns? (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527914)

If i warns me, thats cool, but if it totally blocks me from running what i purchased. They can take a flying leap.

Re:Blocks or warns? (5, Informative)

LocoSpitz (175100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528636)

Tell the company you bought your software from to take a leap; they agreed to the blocking. Or you could, you know, update your security software to the latest, compatible version through the links helpfully provided by Microsoft. Seems like common sense, keeping your security software up to date...

Re:Blocks or warns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528676)

It does both. A Vista "hard block" simply will not let you run the program. There's no way around it, it simply will not run. A Vista "soft block" on the other hand prompts you, asking you if you want to let it run.

Re:Blocks or warns? (0, Offtopic)

radl33t (900691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528698)

Intrigued by your sig, I dug into your journal and decided you are strict constitutionalist. In this case, what is the point of your statement? It initially comes off as some kind of praise or justification. This confuses me because I don't understand how patriotism usurps laws against murder. If your intent is something else, it is lost on me.

Zone Alarm? (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527928)

Isn't that the free AV program?

This is looking like a scam to get people to pay for AV software...

Re:Zone Alarm? (2, Informative)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528538)

ZoneAlarm started as just a firewall, but has since grown to become a security suite that includes antivirus, antispyware, and other things. There are both free and paid versions.

Re:Zone Alarm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528570)

Holy shit, you're a fucking idiot. AN OLD VERSION of Zone Alarm is blocked, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FUCKING VENDOR. Better yet, the Knowledge Base article gives a link to a WORKING, UPDATED VERSION OF ZONE ALARM. If you're not a failure at keeping your system secure, this won't affect you at all, because you'd keep your security software up to date. And if you are out of date, this VENDOR APPROVED BLOCKING will do nothing more than force you into using up to date security software. Are you really this fucking stupid? Really?

"Oh look, a mote in Microsoft's eye" (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22527940)

No more Vista-bashing stories until you fix your own problems with Slashcode, wankers.

Nobody likes the new comment ordering system, not one person, and you will change it back immediately. IANAL, but I think you're probably going to get sued over this. Into bankruptcy.

I'm voting Barack Obama in 2008 because I want Slashdot to change.

Re:"Oh look, a mote in Microsoft's eye" (1)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528082)

Nobody likes the new comment ordering system, not one person

I do, I'll admit it.

I hated it at first, but the slidey-thing to pick your comment threshold really makes it quite a lot easier to filter out the crap, whether a thread has 30 or 300 comments.

Now, finding the "reply" button sometimes seems like an impossibility (I don't know why, but sometimes the slidebar seems to vanish, taking away the ability to start a reply), but a reload usually fixes that.

Re:"Oh look, a mote in Microsoft's eye" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528354)

No more Vista-bashing stories until you fix your own problems with Slashcode, wankers.

Nobody likes the new comment ordering system, not one person, and you will change it back immediately. IANAL, but I think you're probably going to get sued over this. Into bankruptcy.
The defaults are awful, but with some tweaking the new content system is great, imho.

Try this. On that annoying floating thing click the "xx More" button until it stops having a number. On the annoying floating thing drag the dark gray bar all the way down. Drag the white bar down until posts modded two and above are expanded with everything else abbreviated (your choice). Then click the "/" button on the annoying floating thing twice. The first time it jumps to the top and still floats, the second it sticks at the top of the story.

From then on it's actually nice.

Finally some reasonable Slashdot reporting on MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22527946)

NOT!

Come on. Vista is still not a compelling upgrade. SP1 won't get me off of 2003. But this article is crap. Vista is not any less compatible than it was. Some programs that weren't working before are still not working. Some previously broken things are prevented from running half-assed. And all but one of those links points to compatible supported updates.

It's normal (5, Insightful)

koro666 (947362) | more than 6 years ago | (#22527954)

People are quick to slam Microsoft again here. For those reading TFKBA, most of the apps are either:

  1. Anti-virus programs. AV programs have a reputation of hooking on undocumented kernel stuff, so of course a major OS update is going to break them off.
  2. Other programs which abuse undocumented functions or quirks/bugs in Windows, and these get changed/fixed in a subsequent release.

In conclusion, move along, nothing to see here.

Re:It's normal (3, Insightful)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528010)

Sure - plus there are far less compatibility issues with Vista SP1 than with XP SP2 (which was a real pita for a lot of users).

Re:It's normal (1)

timberwolf753 (1064802) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528166)

Are you serious SP2 was not even a problem. Get you facts straight then we will talk. :P

Re:It's normal (1, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528448)

Are you braindead or something? Need to get out of the basement occasionally?

Ever seen a Google Search? [google.com]

Just about 640,000 hits for "problems with XP SP2". Just for the record yung un, ** EVERY ** OS upgrade is going to have problems. Become one with this and you can make a good living dealing with it. Railing against the machine will just give you hemorrhoids.

Re:It's normal (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528540)

You mean it wasn't a problem for you and anyone you know. You do not speak for even a fraction of the people out there. Problems happened.

Re:It's normal (0, Flamebait)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528014)

Actually there's plenty to see. If they are actively disabling 3rd party software against which they compete, then they are making themselves very guilty of anti-trust violations. My guess is the EC will not be very happy about this.

Re:It's normal (4, Informative)

LocoSpitz (175100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528468)

Read the KB article before you start spreading crap in the comments. Every program listed as blocked was disabled with the approval of the vendor, and links are provided right in the article to updated, supported versions.

Re:It's normal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528036)

> 2. Other programs which abuse undocumented functions or quirks/bugs
> in Windows, and these get changed/fixed in a subsequent release.

Hold on now! Isn't Microsoft *known* to use undocumented functions/features
in their own OS to get an advantage over other companies' software? Why should
Microsoft be the only ones to use those "special" features? Why don't they just
document them so *everyone* has a fair shot? Aren't they abusing their
monopoly by withholding the documentation?

Re:It's normal (5, Insightful)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528064)

There's even less to see here as all the security programs have updates.

Bitdefender AV - A supported version (2008 or a later version) is now available.
Jiangmin KV AV v10 - A supported version is now available.
Jiangmin KV AV v2008 - A supported version is now available.
Trend Micro Internet Security - A supported version (16.1 or a later version) is now available.
Zone Alarm Security Suite - A supported version (7.1.218.0 or a later version) is now available.
Rising Personal Firewall - A supported version (2008 version) is now available.
What is this "half an anti-virus solution" FUD crap in the summary?

Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (0, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528180)

So you're supposed to go online with your antivirus, which was disabled by Vista update, so that you can download a fix for your now not working antivirus so you can be protected from viruses ...

Isn't the whole idea of having a running antivirus so that you can go safely online and download sh*t?

If the SP was going to break your antivirus, the proper behaviour would have been for it to abort itself, and tell you that you need to go to xyz.com or hatever and get an update to your antivirus first ...

They broke security in the name of security. Sounds kind of like Viet Nam - "We bombed the village to save it!" (or Iraq for that matter)

Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528370)

So you're supposed to go online with your antivirus, which was disabled by Vista update, so that you can download a fix for your now not working antivirus so you can be protected from viruses ...
If you're downloading your antivirus software from the pirate bay or something, I guess you have a point... and much bigger problems to worry about. I doubt you'll get infected visiting the Norton antivirus site for an update, and if you do, some old version of their software surely wouldn't have helped anyways.

Side note, switch to Linux! 90% of what's wrong with Windows is virses and anti-virus software, I don't know which is worse. My Windows XP VMWare image is constantly bogging down because anti-virus software is chewing up the disk or CPU, getting confused when I disconnect from the network, or nagging me to allow firefox access to the network for the 1000th time.

Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (1, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528402)

My point was that various security products (including firewalls) are affected, and we all know how quick an unprotected windows box can get p0wned.

As for "switching to linux", I can't switch. I'm already there - been there off and on since slackware 3.x, My last Windows purchase was Windows 95.

Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528444)

Give me a f'ing break. Going online without a firewall for five minutes to download a new version of your AV software or firewall won't result in your Vista system being "p0wned."

Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (1, Troll)

LLKrisJ (1021777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528384)

So you're supposed to go online with your antivirus, which was disabled by Vista update, so that you can download a fix for your now not working antivirus so you can be protected from viruses ...

Isn't the whole idea of having a running antivirus so that you can go safely online and download sh*t?
Isn't the whole idea of running antivirus software that you keep it up-to-date??? This type of software gets updates for a reason. If yours breaks because of SP1 then you are clearly not running the latest version so your computer will be unsafe to begin with... So it's your own damn fault. Don't come moaning.

I really don't understand. First they slag off MS for trying to hard to be backward compatible, thus making no real fundamental security improvements. Now when they make an effort to fundamentally change things they get slagged again for breaking some deprecated software which shouldn't be running anymore to begin with...

Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528764)

You must be new here... this is SlashDot, the vast majority of the whiner-hippies who post here adhere to some pretty predictable behaviours...

  • Nobody should ever pay for anything ever -- everything should be free (as in beer).
  • Everything produced by, related to, or situated near Microsoft is bad.
  • Whatever twisted, hypocritical, irrational position that we are required to contort ourselves into to support these positions shall be deemed legitimate and unassailable (via moderation).
  • In support of the first two points, piracy of protected intellectual property is a perfectly legitimate practice.


-AC

Re:It's normal (1, Troll)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528130)

Would #1 be because there is no public hooks for antivirus programs to use?
There of course would be private ones for Microsoft's products.

Re:It's normal (1)

lsproc (943512) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528344)

Correct!

Plus note how almost all of them have an updated version available that fixes the problem.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:It's normal (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528400)

not to mention that the list is very short, most of the affected programs have updates or workarounds, AND SP1 is not even out to the public.

Article is FUD (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22527976)

The list of blocked programs encompasses about five programs, four of which have new versions that are compatible with SP1. The entire list of programs with less compatibility is about a dozen programs, and I only counted three of which do not have updated versions that support SP1.

Vista again? (5, Interesting)

Eddy Luten (1166889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528024)

Why are we still even talking about Vista? Is anybody really using Vista these days? Governments and Organizations have spoken out against Vista, Office 2007 and it lives in infamy everywhere else. Even Microsoft's Eric Traut [youtube.com] has somewhat spoken out against Vista and Windows in general.

Everywhere I go people say I'll stick to XP for as long as I can, even in the Enterprise. These type of /. submissions are getting really old really fast since they all repeat the same message: stay the hell away from Vista.

Re:Vista again? (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528054)

'for as long as I can'... this is the important bit. Microsoft can force you onto Vista whenever they want simply by dropping maintenance (including security fixes) for XP. Like it or not, all Windows users are going to be running either Vista or its successors a few years from now. So you'd better get used to it.

Re:Vista again? (4, Insightful)

Atti K. (1169503) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528110)

For me, XP is gonna be the last Windows I ever use, at least for personal stuff. If my employer will switch to Vista, that's their problem. But my next computer will be a Mac, and if I were not that lazy, I would have switched to Linux my home desktop long time ago (those huge amounts of data on ntfs partitions are one of the reasons - and no, ntfs3g is not perfect). The one Windows-only app I really need is IE (stupid internet-banking site...) which can run perfectly inside a VM.

Re:Vista again? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528268)

I said the same about Win2k. I completed my switch to Debian early last year and I am perfectly happy.

Re:Vista again? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528224)

Like it or not, all Windows users are going to be running either Vista or its successors a few years from now. So you'd better get used to it.
Good to know that most people will be running osx or linux in a few years ...

Remember, both of those alternatives have two things that Window s7 doesn't have:

  1. They're here now
  2. They're proven, mature products
Vista is not there yet, and its doubtful it will ever be a mature product, with the way that even Microsoft is trying to position it now as just a stop-gap on the road to Windows 7. It really Is VastME.

Re:Vista again? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528062)

Um if you read the ms kb you will see that almost all of the programs ALREADY HAVE PATCHED VERSIONS AVAIBLE OR WILL BY PUBLIC RELEASE.

Slashdot fud

Re:Vista again? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528096)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of major companies are currently planning their migrations to Vista. I do consulting and integration work for mostly Fortune 500 companies, and a large number of them are making their plans for post SP1.

Slashdot is NOT a very good indicator of industry trends.

Re:Vista again? (3, Funny)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528520)

Slashdot is NOT a very good indicator of industry trends.
Not true. In 20 years, no Fortune 500 company will be using Vista.

Re:Vista again? (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528120)

I am seeing that my school is switching to Vista on office machines, not sure if it is due to some support contract obligation, or it is actually voluntarily -- just happy am no longer in the computer support business.

Re:Vista again? (4, Insightful)

webheaded (997188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528176)

You know, I'm honestly really tired of seeing this same lame ass rant over and over again in every single MS article. Kudos to you at least for keeping it relatively short. This happens EVERY SINGLE TIME Microsoft releases an new OS. They can't win, even if they DID write the best software known to man, and you know why? Legacy compatibility. You guys bitch when it doesn't work with your old shit and if it DOES work with your old shit, you bitch because the OS is bloated and runs like shit. There's a price for compatibility and if you think you have the easy and simple solution, you're probably wrong.

Every time one of these comes out there's someone ranting about the downfall of Microsoft and Windows and blah blah blah, and it never happens. They usually get Insightful mod points and everyone has a circle jerk over it. You've been doing it since Slashdot came into existence. It's ridiculous and it makes me laugh to see it keep happening over and over again and people don't even realize that they ARE doing it over and over again. Is Vista perfect? God no, not by any means. Is it a step down from XP? For the time being, perhaps. It has it's merits...I use it on a daily basis so I've got a pretty good leverage on the subject, unlike 90% of the people bitching who are using Linux at the moment and have spent all of 5 minutes on Vista. Shit changes from release to release...it happens. It sucks...it's annoying. It frustrates the hell out of me when they arbitrarily move things around just because they think it looks pretty. Was there a point in renaming "Add/Remove Programs" to "Program and Features" really? No...is the world going to come crashing down because of it? No probably not.

Also I keep seeing you guys whine about RAM usage...have none of you even read what the features of Vista are? It uses lots of RAM and caches your most frequently launched programs there...no matter what you are doing, you will always have high RAM usage...why are we even debating that? Furthermore, again, this happens every time they release an OS. It always requires better hardware. Trying to run it on an old piece of shit computer probably causes at least half of the problems we see. They can't forsee every conceivable hardware configuration...they just can't. It's impossible. I mean for christ's sake...Apple has problems too and they've got an EXTREMELY limited amount of hardware to accomodate for. What does that tell you? It tells you that it's REALLY hard to account for these things and if you think Linux does it so much better, I'd have to laugh at you. Linux still supports a laughable amount of hardware compared to Windows. Not necessarily Linux's fault, but it's still not there and people still have problems with it.

What I'm really trying to say here is that I really wish people would take a realistic and logical look at this kind of stuff. The rampant fanboyism disgusts me sometimes. If you like Linux, good for you. That's awesome. I like it too. I like Windows as well...for different reasons. They both have their merits...so does MacOSX (it's quite sexy I'll admit). Just because you like one thing though...does that mean you have to have fangasm and go apeshit about every competing product's flaws while completely ignoring the flaws of your favorite? Furthermore honestly...who even gives a shit? I'm sure most people here that aren't rabid fanboys are really getting sick of seeing the same shit like this over and over again, you know?

"backwards compitability" IS the Windows franchis (1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528372)

You know, I'm honestly really tired of seeing this same lame ass rant over and over again in every single MS article. Kudos to you at least for keeping it relatively short. This happens EVERY SINGLE TIME Microsoft releases an new OS. They can't win, even if they DID write the best software known to man, and you know why? Legacy compatibility. You guys bitch when it doesn't work with your old shit and if it DOES work with your old shit, you bitch because the OS is bloated and runs like shit. There's a price for compatibility and if you think you have the easy and simple solution, you're probably wrong.

If Microsoft drops backwards compatibility, there's no reason for people to use Microsoft products. If you're going to have to switch all your software anyway, why not switch to linux or osx?

In other words, Microsoft has no choice - they have to continue to produce the same crappy software, because that is what their franchise is based on. Breaking backwards compatibility breaks the only reason people continue to use Windows - because their existing software works.

Most of the people who use Windows hate their computers. Ask how many of them would be happy to contribute to a fund to pay the legal fees of whoever takes out Redmond ... among Windows users, Gates is more hated than Hillary.

Re:"backwards compitability" IS the Windows franch (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528474)

Most of the people who use Windows hate their computers. Ask how many of them would be happy to contribute to a fund to pay the legal fees of whoever takes out Redmond ... among Windows users, Gates is more hated than Hillary.
Honestly, I really doubt this considering how many non-IT people there are that use Windows. Hell, I've been using computer since I was 7 and I know a fair bit...and I don't hate Windows or Bill Gates. :p I wouldn't say I LOVE them either though.

Re:"backwards compitability" IS the Windows franch (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528554)

If Microsoft drops backwards compatibility, there's no reason for people to use Microsoft products. If you're going to have to switch all your software anyway, why not switch to linux or osx?

Ever considered the idea of software updates? Like $PROGRAM_X.1234 runs on XP and $PROGRAM_X.2013 runs on Vista. So you upgrade to Vista, upgrade to version 2.013, maybe get a few features thrown in. Certainly get a few bugs added, perhaps a couple taken away.

Profit. Come now, you're not really new here. You understand this. Now take a deep breath. Reboot.

Re:Vista again? (5, Insightful)

dummondwhu (225225) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528428)

When XP came out, I said, "I'm sticking to Win2K as long as a I can and never going to XP. Bah, the only thing that keeps me on Windows is games." Then I got a new PC with XP installed and realized it was pretty decent. Then I said, "I'm sticking with XP as long as I can and never going to Vista. Bah, the only thing that keeps me on Windows is games." Then, I got a PS3 and that was good enough to satisfy my mild gaming interests. Finally, I had no reason to stick with Windows. Then, I got a new laptop with Vista installed and realized, "Hey, this isn't as bad as the hype."

In my college days and for a while after, fiddling with hardware and building a working box with linux really interested me. Now, I'm tired of dealing with drivers and all the b.s. I just want an OS that lets me do what I need to do. I don't have unusual needs for hardware so I don't give a shit if Vista won't support this or that. I whipped up an order from Dell and it showed up and it works and that's that.

Vista isn't perfect and never will be. But neither is any OS from any vendor. And certainly, Vista needs some work in the short term. But, when some linux distro is robust enough to unseat Windows, it will. That's the way markets work. Until then, I just don't have the time to pretend anymore that Windows is soooooo inferior for the vast majority of users that just surf the web, read e-mail, play DVDs and other typical stuff.

Re:Vista again? (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528506)

See it's people like you that should be modded up. It's nice to see someone break away from the rampant fanboyism and take a real look at this kinda stuff. None of them are perfect and jumping up and down and screaming about Windows doesn't make it suck, it just makes you a jackass. :p

Re:Vista again? (3, Funny)

Compholio (770966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528748)

Now, I'm tired of dealing with drivers and all the b.s. I just want an OS that lets me do what I need to do. I don't have unusual needs for hardware so I don't give a shit if Vista won't support this or that. I whipped up an order from Dell and it showed up and it works and that's that.
I completely agree with you, playing with drivers is a pain in the ass - but that's true on both sides of the isle. This last time around I ordered from System76 and got a nice Ubuntu box with no driver issues, support for updates, and all beautifully pre-installed.

Re:Vista again? (4, Insightful)

rhizome (115711) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528434)

There's a price for compatibility and if you think you have the easy and simple solution, you're probably wrong.

No, the price of compatibility is closed-source software. To recognize how little value both of these conditions have, consider that I can still compile current versions of tcpdump or fvwm or openoffice on RedHat 6, FreeBSD 5 and Solaris 8. While you ably demonstrate that a reasonable argument can be made for Windows improving over the years, your point boils down to the fact that Windows used to be worse than it is now. This is not a glowing endorsement and speaks little of the standards that they should be held up to. Microsoft's problems are due only to their own policies, and "compatibility" is only an indicator that they've built a fence that they have trouble climbing.

Re:Vista again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528494)

You seem to be under the delusion that features require bloat. Instead of using second rate programmers and telling people to throw more hardware at it, why not hire good programmers who know what the fuck they are doing?

Considering that XP is Microsoft's single best operating system, why couldn't they just stick with it? It works fine for anything you could possibly want to do without the bloat and sluggishness of Vista. Instead of releasing a new OS, they could, I don't know, work on fixing bugs, optimising code and making XP even smaller, faster and better.

Oh that's right, they are greedy and want to force (artificial Vista requirement for applications, games, DX10, etc) a product on people that they don't need.

Re:Vista again? (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528548)

You sound exactly like what I'm describing. They said exactly...EXACTLY the same things about XP. Go look back. Luna made everything "bloated" on XP. You can turn that off in Vista just the same as XP. If you're going to endorse a past OS my MS, at least get it right and go back to Windows 2000.

Re:Vista again? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528216)

I think it's frustrating that a lot of people ignore what Vista gets right and simply say XP is always better. For example, in Vista, if a video driver crashes, the system reinitializes it like nothing happened. To my knowledge, XP didn't do that. I've been hit with that one a few times a week, since NVIDIA and ATI put out such crappy, perpetual-beta drivers that probably haven't been tested with my motherboard/GPU combination.

Or take the fact that Internet Explorer now runs as a different user. It's not the perfect solution to the problem of buggy browsers (there could still be a privilege escalation somewhere, or a bogus ActiveX control that wants to be escalated), but you have to admit, it does mitigate the problem in a way that Firefox on Linux certainly doesn't today. (And yes, Firefox does have security holes every now and then.)

Or the fact that you now have to click-through a menu to do an Administrator task. Yes, this conditions users into clicking "Accept" all the time without thinking about it (undeniably bad), but for users that are careful about it, it can be an improvement. (By the way, Mac OS X and several Linux distros have this feature too, although they prompt for your password. But nobody complains about this feature in these other systems, do they?)

But, since it takes a long time to copy a file, or since they've had small difficulties deploying the service pack, or since they've changed the UI so it's no longer what people are used to, all of a sudden it's a complete failure, and its merits get ignored. Yeah, the situation with Vista is far from perfect, but when has Windows ever been so? I'm personally curious on how Windows 7 can improve upon the situation.

Ran Kubuntu and XP--Now running Vista. (1)

TheIndifferentiate (914096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528720)

I spent $800 for a new computer at WalMart (Dell Inspiron 530 with 22" monitor, 2.2 Ghz dual-core Intel CPU, 2GB RAM, 500GB HD), and it came with Vista. I was going to replace it with Kubuntu which I have run for about a year and a half on my old PC after dropping XP. I thought I'd have a look at Vista before I did so. I liked it a lot and have decided to keep it. $800 is cheap for what I got (I could have gotten more probably by shopping around more), and Vista runs great on it. It consumes about a gig of RAM with Outlook and FeedDemon always running and Aero on (never tried turning it off), but so did Kubuntu on my old machine with Kontact and Akkregator going with plain old graphics going (various attempts at Compiz/Beryl provided flakey results). Anyways, I'm a professional programmer with an MS and MBA, and I know what I'm doing in both Unix environments and Windows (and environments that I can't run at home), and I know about lock-in and all the other pitfalls of proprietary software, and I don't give a crap about that. I'm using what's easiest. Vista has been a breeze so far, and I haven't had any problems at all with it. There are ways to get around the dreaded DRM overhead and other things that give people pause about using Vista, and the tired arguments of learning curve don't matter to me because its the same old thing in Linux land. You gotta know what your doing to effectively run either, and so far, I've found Vista to be less hassle to use now in comparison to Kubuntu at this point in its development. YMMV and all that, but if all it takes is one bad experience with an OS to knock it, then it should only take one good experience for me to post what I've found too.

Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive. (5, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528186)

Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive towards its customers, in my opinion.

Customers are being pushed toward buying Windows Vista, even though it is clearly not a finished product, and maybe even not a desirable product.

If a company needs to buy 1,000 new computers, it is placed in a terrible position. Will it buy Windows XP, a product that Bill Gates, software's Dr. Death, has declared is Mainstream Support Retired [microsoft.com] on 4/14/2009? If it does, it will be forced to pay extra when Microsoft desides to stop supporting Windows XP. And every Microsoft customer needs official support because of the huge, huge number of vulnerabilities that are found in Microsoft products.

Operating systems don't naturally have so many vulnerabilities. Users of Mac computers don't even bother to run anti-spyware and anti-virus software because they don't have problems. Large numbers of vulnerabilities are a built-in shortcoming of Microsoft products; apparently Microsoft doesn't let its programmers finish their work. Huge numbers of vulnerabilities force an unnatural connection with the supplier; the user is dependent on the supplier for patches; that creates opportunities for control. Vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft because people are forced to "upgrade".

When Windows XP was first released, it was very, very buggy. Windows XP became relatively usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of SP2. Service Pack 2 for XP fixed more than 330 problems, if I remember correctly, and some of those were not documented.

We have seen numerous reasons to believe that Windows Vista will also be full of hassles at least until Vista SP2.

Microsoft's customers were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with "DLL Hell" and the "Blue Screen of Death". Customers had to endure 3 bad years with Windows XP pre-SP2. Since the release of SP2, there have been only 3 relatively good years with Windows XP, and now Microsoft is arranging pressure to have bad years again.

That's ugly in my opinion, and I'm only one of many who think that way. This is all being done by billionaires who want nothing more than more money; that's sick.

Remember, Microsoft managers are sinking the company over the long term to get short-term profit.

With operating systems, there is lock-in. Linux is not an easy option because re-writing software and re-training is too expensive in most cases. But once a reasonable alternative is available, Microsoft will have difficulty finding customers, it seems to me.

It's fine if Microsoft introduces a new product. But there should not be pressure to buy the new product until it is stable. The "new" OS product should not be designed to require users to buy new hardware, as it seems is true with Windows Vista. Remember that Microsoft serves the system builders, who want everyone to need more hardware; the final customer can be dis-regarded and dis-repected because of OS lock-in.

One of the biggest and most respected IT magazines is rejecting Windows Vista: Save Windows XP [infoworld.com] . Quote: "More than 75,000 people have signed InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition in the three weeks since it was launched - many with passionate, often emotional pleas to not be forced to make a change."

ReactOS (5, Interesting)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528244)

The project I'm really keeping an eye on right now is ReactOS. http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html [reactos.org] It's still alpha right now, but they're expecting to hit beta later this year. The initial beta release is supposed to be around 70% Windows compatible (realistically most things will work even then because the last 30% is stuff that isn't used that much). They're aiming for 100% compatibility of course...probably shortly before 1.0. Once that hits there will be a Windows alternative with absolutely 0 Microsoft code. It has the potential to make them irrelevant.

Sadly optimistic was: Re:ReactOS (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528472)

Once that hits there will be a Windows alternative with absolutely 0 Microsoft code. It has the potential to make them irrelevant.

Even if ReactOS is capable of running 100% of windows software, it would be nearly impossible for them to reach the level of market saturation that microsoft enjoys. And it would be very difficult to describe a product with such high presence as being so easily made irrelevant.

With that said, I'll also say that I would be first to celebrate any such falling of windows. I run any OS I can in the place of windows, anywhere I can. But saying that ReactOS has the potential to make windows "irrelevant" is unfortunately a bit silly.

Re:Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive. (1)

tm2b (42473) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528700)

Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive towards its customers, in my opinion.
And next on Slashdot: Sun expected to rise in east, and water is wet. GIFs at 11.

Comment: Windows XP was worse than I said. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528728)

In a comment to another story titled Psychology of past trauma [slashdot.org] , SgtChaireBourne explains that the picture I painted of Windows XP in my parent comment is actually quite rosy; Windows XP was worse that I said.

Good (0, Troll)

ceeam (39911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528204)

Windows must die.

Re:Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528254)

Slashdot must die! You fucking open-source anti-ms retards!
Oh my god someone owns this software!!
For god's sake plese get that stuff away from me!!
As I'm careful I only buy fruits that I have compiled on my own...

Wine for Windows (4, Funny)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528220)

After I had a couple of old Win95-era games that refused to install on my brother's Win2k system (I haven't had Windows for nearly a decade, so I was thinking of giving them to him), I've been wondering if it might not be possible to get Wine [winehq.org] to run on Windows. Sounds like this might be an idea that will only become more and more reasonable as time goes on. So...how about it, Wine team? Can we possibly get Wine for Windows? It could run on top of Cygwin/X [cygwin.com] . :)

Re:Wine for Windows (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528590)

wine does have a windows install look on there download page

Re:Wine for Windows (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528668)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

wine does have a windows install look on there download page
Holy smoke! I was only semi-joking, but that's cool! :)

Re:Wine for Windows (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528704)

all funny aside, this is a real idea, and AFAIK in progress as a real thing. the idea is essentially to replace ntvdm

You should already be updated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528276)

Most of the list is security software, and the updates for them are already out. If you aren't keeping your security software up to date, then why are you bothering with it anyways?

Ummm? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528390)

Maybe you should buy updated shit. The only programs ive seen Vista "break" are programs that werent _designed_ for it.

12 apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22528426)

There's like 12 apps on that list and it probably has to do with the fact that there are some security changes with SP1. However, given that MS touts the importance of working with developers developers developers developers, it will be interesting to see if these incompatibilities will be resolved before the launch of SP1 to minimize consumer hassle and to preserve the 'software ecosystem' that they have built up surrounding Windows.

Who cares? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22528680)

If the OS runs better, i could careless if another company has to update their software to run on it.

Progress has its price.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...