OSNews

You shouldn't expect windows XP programs to work on Vista.
Whether Vista is crap or not is a totally different issue and it is not why some people didn't like Vista.
Even Linus Torvalds said that people don't like change and the only reason some folks didn't like Vista is that it is different from XP.

I haven't touched windows since 2004. But I don't imagine that Vista is that terrible or worse than XP.

It's like XP, just slower and there's a million versions of it with different installation keys as the only difference.

What is different in Vista compared to XP, is that it uses resources of two XP installations and offers a GUI which is about as much behind the others as XP's Luna was on its debut. I had no serious trouble in finding anything I wanted, only "optimizations" caused problems, since I didn't know (nor could imagine) that disabling one service might break up ten other pretty fundamental services.

I've seen many times a "Vista noob" joining a (IRC) channel and asking how to change his background picture, tune graphics card settings or see network adapter information, etc. in Vista, and then "Vista pros" telling him it happens "just the same way like in XP".

Vista is a technical marvel and a commercial failure. Most people who hate it, don't use it. People who use it and hate it, can't appreciate the breaking changes on it.

The problem is the fact that they knew that reliability and compatible had to be compromised to make atleast some marginal progress forward in Windows (security etc). If they knew that they could promise compatibility - why didn't they just admit that things might go pear shape, include a free copy of Virtual PC along with Windows XP in the form of a bootable image - and be done with it.

The problem isn't the break of compatibility, but the push by them that some how they can move forward without breaking things along the way - and claiming that everything will be right. They should have been more honest, and I'll tell you, sure, the adoption might not have been great, but atleast customers *knew* things could go wrong, and they weren't given the false impression that it was a smooth transition.

Edited 2008-04-05 13:20 UTC

The whole build is broken why shouldn't i expect xp programs to work on vista? Not expectin them to work on vista is like not expecting win2000 programs to work on xp . win32 programs that crash is nothing i defend Vista for , its only a resource-munching bloated Bad-Build

*kaiwai takes a deep breath*

Please, could you put that brain into gear - and learn a thing about programming. You can never guarantee 100% compatibility given the nature of programming - when you move forward there will be applications written to expect a certain underlying operating system behaviour. You have to change that underlying operating system behaviour to move forward, old assumptions change, and have to be replaced with new paradigms.

So please, before opening your mouth and making such grossly ignorant statements - learn how things actually work in the real world instead of sitting behind your computer desk, stamping your feet and saying, "I want it, and I want it now!" followed by a hissey fit.

Yes, Windows Vista does have issues, but those issues are because they over promise the level of compatibility whilst at the same time over promising what they can do within that confined area of which they can operate (compatibility vs. progress forward).

If Microsoft made no compromise, pushed it forward, rooted out the old crap from their operating system and openly declared, "this is a big step forward, expect most of your applications not to work" - sure, there would be complaints, but at least people would know where they stood before investing in a copy of Windows Vista. They would expect breakage and incompatibility with applications, and then work out a migration plan based on application availability.

Edited 2008-04-05 23:08 UTC

Ever heard of Solaris? Stability of interfaces doesn't necessitate not moving forward. Look at Solaris 10 vs. Solaris 2.6. You can still run binaries from 2.6 on 10.

That said, because of horrid programming (and horrid programmers who didn't spend the time to DESIGN before implementing), changes that break backwards compatibility are/were necessary in Windows.

I wish they had just thrown it all out and started anew, keeping the good and ditching *all* the bad. They'd have still gotten horrible reviews, but at least there would have been a good reason behind it.

PS - Say what you will about Sun/Solaris, but a lot of programmers could learn something from their design standards. I'm sure we'll see a non-backwards compatible Solaris in the future, it will be a necessary evil - but they've done pretty damn well for having a decade+ of compatibility at the binary level.

You must have missed Windows ME then, lucky you. Vista works, just badly.

Well its a written introduction, so if you just read the text it should be pretty clear which url leads you to what.

I too enjoy Jerkcity, but isn't there somewhere else you should /g/o?