Submitted by Microsoft has released a list of 800 applications that should run properly on its new Windows Vista operating system. As expected, virtually all of Microsoft’s own offerings are on the list – including the latest Office 2007 products. Also included are a host of business and security applications from vendors ranging from Intuit to Trend Micro. And desktop applications from Google, which ramped up its rivalry with Microsoft earlier this week with the introduction of online business applications, made the cut. However, noticeable by their absence are applications from a number of the world’s biggest software companies, including Adobe Systems, IBM, and Symantec.
At first, I was disturbed… just 800 applications? There’s more than eight hundred *developers* for Windows.
But then, I read this list. This list only contains programs which were submitted for certification — it seems none of Adobe, IBM, or Symantic thought getting certified as Vista-ready was very important.
I highly doubt Microsoft finds an educational program like 4Mation Educational Resource’s Granny’s Garden to be more important to be compatibale with than something like Symantic Antivirus or Adobe Photoshop, anyhow.
But then, I read this list. This list only contains programs which were submitted for certification — it seems none of Adobe, IBM, or Symantic thought getting certified as Vista-ready was very important.
Why certify old software, when you can release and have people pay for a newer “Vista ready” version (Like Norton 360 due in a few days).
That’s fine and I agree with you, but people need to stop whining about compatibility of this software if the vendors themselves don’t show enough interest to ensure it runs.
Dear god, who would want to pollute their machine with Norton 360 when there are so many better alternatives out there – Kaspersky being one example; which is already Windows Vista compatible and better still doesn’t hack around in the kernel stuffing up in areas where it shouldn’t be.
Using it right now, and it is a great product – avoid Symantec and McAfee at all costs; if it weren’t for the shocking product quality, its their active programme of lying about Patchguard and its impact on companies like theirs.
just 800 applications? […] This list only contains programs which were submitted for certification
Even still, commercial Linux distributions support (more than just certify) more applications than this. I don’t have access to any at the moment, but here’s a quick and dirty check on my Gentoo box:
# cd /usr/portage; ls -1 –ignore=dev* –ignore=*libs | xargs ls -1 | wc -l
10676
Erm, you do know what is *certified* and what is *supported* are two different things entirely?
Let’s compare apples to apples here — that list you have is not a list of programs certified for compliance by Gentoo, and the linked list specifically notes that it is not a comprehensive list of all the programs that work in Vista.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding (it wouldn’t be the first time). My impression was that a certified application is known to work, whereas a supported application is guaranteed to work (for paying customers).
The package count I calculated only includes those for which the Gentoo community has provided source trees, patches, and build scripts that have no known issues for the target architecture. If there are known issues for more fine-grained environments, including those pertaining to dependencies, configurations, etc., then the build script is known to detect these conditions and inform the user. Of course, there are occasions where new issues are reported after a package revision is marked stable. The package maintainer then takes steps to either correct the problem, detect the conditions that lead to the problem, or remove the package’s stable keyword for that architecture.
I’ve worked in software test positions for a large proprietary software vendor that does massive amounts of pre-release testing in order to certify that everything works as it should. No matter how much you test, how much code coverage you attain with these tests, and how many environments, stress levels, and concurrency models you exercise, things always blow up in the field. The best you can do is make a concerted effort to limit how many flaws escape into the field and provide prompt fixes when flaws are inevitable reported by users.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft usually can’t provide fixes when third-party software blows up. The best they can do is make a concerted effort to limit how often this happens. In this sense, Microsoft’s certification falls short of the kind of support provided by commercial Linux vendors. As for Gentoo, support is provided on a best-effort basis. There is no guarantee, but at least they have the resources necessary to fix problems, even if they reside in upstream packages.
But on the other hand, I realize from your recent posts that you don’t believe in the this sort of development model, and that Windows is one of the few remaining platforms that you find morally justifiable. I don’t pretend to understand this position, but I adamantly support anyone’s right to use the software they find most appropriate.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding (it wouldn’t be the first time). My impression was that a certified application is known to work, whereas a supported application is guaranteed to work (for paying customers).
Ah, there’s the misunderstanding. It’s my understanding that supported applications are applications that are known to be able to run on Vista, while certified applications are those that MS has given its ‘stamp of approval’ — something that Microsoft guarantees will run on Vista.
certified applications are those that MS has given its ‘stamp of approval’ — something that Microsoft guarantees will run on Vista.
I guess I still don’t understand. What actions does Microsoft take if their customers report flaws in certified applications? I just don’t see how they can provide any sort of guarantee unless, by accepting a certification, the application’s vendor agrees to service any problems that might arise. To do this, the vendor will probably have to make similar agreements with other vendors from whom they license proprietary code. And so on until all vendors involved in the production of the application have signed on to agree to support this guarantee.
You can begin to see that proprietary software is a support nightmare. When it works, it’s great. But when it breaks, you better hope the proper agreements are in place to make sure somebody with source code access has agreed to provide service.
Even within a large proprietary vendor, many customer issues become a huge production to resolve when it isn’t clear which part of the code is responsible for the issue and which department should be tasked with providing a fix. The developers don’t really care who does what–they all have too many tasks in their queues as it is. They just hack away at their assignments with their speakerphones on mute, listening to the managers argue over headcount and “bandwidth.”
I’ve been an OS developer in both community and proprietary models, and in my experience with proprietary development, there’s always at least 3 times as many managers as could possibly be useful. If a development process isn’t established to let the developers manage themselves, i.e. assign issues, coordinate the ordering of commits, make sure issues are resolved correctly and within a certain amount of time… then no amount of management can save the project. For one thing, when developers go to management with problems, we usually have to restate the situation at least three times in successively simpler language until the blank stare on their face finally shows some level of understanding.
I’ve gotten at little OT, but just suffice it to say that Microsoft’s certification is just wishful thinking. They’ve exercised due diligence in verifying that the applications work, but just watch the fingers start pointing in various directions when something blows up.
I can’t reply to myself for some reason, and it’s past my edit time…
I just wanted to clarify my calculation and my statements as I have realized they aren’t entirely consistent. I didn’t check these packages to verify if they are indeed marked stable, as opposed to testing or unstable. I corrected my methods to take this into account.
Once again, disregarding development tools and library packages, only considering packages marked stable on x86 (which is Vista’s most supported platform), and only counting each package once even if multiple versions of that package are marked stable, I count 4734 packages.
Once again, disregarding development tools and library packages, only considering packages marked stable on x86 (which is Vista’s most supported platform), and only counting each package once even if multiple versions of that package are marked stable, I count 4734 packages.
Packages != Applications.
Firstly, many of those packages will be things that are part of the base system (ie. Bash, X, text editors, utilities, etc).
Secondly, many apps are made up of more than one package. OpenOffice is about 5 packages, GIMP is 2, etc.
Excellent point. Packages do represent a finer level of granularity than what would typically be called an application. I don’t really know how to take this into account in any reliable way. Many packages that we would certainly consider to be “applications” can serve as a dependencies for other “applications,” so the distinction of not having any dependents is not useful. We could count the number of packages that attempt to install menu items in the native DE, but I feel that this list would be significantly too narrow. I guess we could define an application as a set of packages that share a unique project homepage?
This incongruence is a direct consequence of the practical considerations for delivering software on proprietary and open source systems. Applications in the proprietary world represent the largest set of code that provides a set of related features with minimal external dependencies. Packages in the open source model are rather the smallest set of code that provides a set of corequisite features with maximal external dependencies. At least these are the ideals. It’s not hard to find OSS packages that could–and should–be split into finer-grained packages, such as the various components of OpenOffice.
i really don’t see how itunes not being vista compatible would “cripple” vista. if anything it would hurt apple.
I hope you’re being flippant. There are an awful lot of iPods out there, and the majority of those synch up with Windows PCs. OSX is strong enough to compete on its own. If Apple is in fact deliberately holding back to make Vista compatibility look worse than it is, it frankly demonstrates a reason not to be a customer of theirs. Compatibility is an issue with Vista, but going out of the way to create issues is just petty.
I know I am anti-ms and all but…. Its not like MS hasn’t gone out of their way at times to NOT be compatible with other people’s software (SAMBA, NTFS, AD, Java). Why is it petty when Apple does it?
Compatibility is an issue with Vista, but going out of the way to create issues is just petty.
You could very easily turn that statement around. You know MS went out of their way to keep backwards compatibility with their own products but apparently didn’t think it important to do the same for an application used by a lot of their customers but made by a company they happen to be in direct competion with. I bet Zune owners (both of them) aren’t having compatibility issues.
i really don’t see how itunes not being vista compatible would “cripple” vista. if anything it would hurt apple.
Tell that to the tens of millions of iPod/iTunes devotees on the XP/2000 Platforms.
Yeah, but it is still not Microsofts problem, it is an Apple problem if something.
Saying that all of Microsoft’s software will run properly on Vista isn’t saying much. Considering how most of Microsoft’s software is riddled with bugs and irritating glitches, the phrase “properly” should be put into context. Microsoft isn’t doing itself any favors snubbing Adobe and IBM with regards to ensuring their software is compatible with Vista, especially when one considers that most graphics artists erroneously believe that Photoshop and the like are “better” on Macintosh. I am beginning to look at Microsoft as another Titanic. It’s only a matter of time before it hits the iceberg and starts going down. Oh wait, there’s an iceberg with a cute little penguin sitting on it straight ahead.
Considering how most of Microsoft’s software is riddled with bugs and irritating glitches, the phrase “properly” should be put into context.
Microsoft has made some poor security decisions over the years. They’ve allowed other companies to write really lousy software and slap a “Windows Ready” sticker on it. Their mistakes affect a larger number of computers than most software. But just about everyone releases buggy software, and patches it later.
This is why the “common wisdom” is to avoid .0 releases of *ANY* software.
Adobe has an absolutely terrible track record at keeping up with new OS releases. They were slow to port to OSX, slow to port to Intel Mac, and they’re slow to update the linux products. I still remember a version of acrobat that wanted write access to the root of whatever drive the software was installed on.
I look at that list and consider the possibility that Adobe doesn’t take Windows seriously, rather than the other way around. It’s not like there wasn’t a VERY lengthy beta period on Vista, during which Adobe could have been testing their software.
The article, though, is referring to the list of certified software, not the list of software known to work. I’m currently running Photoshop 7, Acrobat Reader 8, Adobe Lightroom beta, OpenOffice, Nero 7, Firefox, and the Cisco VPN client, all quite successfully under Vista Enterprise 32 bit.
From the KB article (emphasis mine): To receive this designation, software companies test their applications to make sure that the applications meet the program’s guidelines.
This is why the “common wisdom” is to avoid .0 releases of *ANY* software.
That is just lame.
Old software tend to contain more bugs than new software (of course, there are exceptions), and as such you’re more often then not better off with a newer release than an older release –independent of what the minor version number is.
The funny thing is that by using the newer version of software means that you sometimes avoid getting bitten by its flaws simply because they haven’t been exposed yet.
Naturally, being the pioneer means you may run into issues that others haven’t encountered [yet], but that is another story…
I have a Lenovo laptop which was jam-packed with little IBM utilities and applets that did everything from Wi-Fi management, to power management. They worked great in XP.
I took pains to download all the new Vista versions when I upgrade – half of them still don’t work for a damn even though they are supposedly Vista Compatible. I’ve basically given up on them – Vista seems to be good enough anyway that it doesn’t need any help managing wi-fi or power options.
I have a Lenovo laptop which was jam-packed with little IBM utilities and applets that did everything from Wi-Fi management, to power management. They worked great in XP.
I took pains to download all the new Vista versions when I upgrade – half of them still don’t work for a damn even though they are supposedly Vista Compatible. I’ve basically given up on them – Vista seems to be good enough anyway that it doesn’t need any help managing wi-fi or power options.
Shouldn’t many of those have equivalants out of the box in Vista’s mobility center?
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/b09c69fb-c6c8-4…
I know that everyone is miffed that Vista seems to be a greater break with the past than the majority of Windows releases, but all the press I have read so far says that application breakage is primarily in drivers, and applications that depend on things like the network stack: firewalls and such. Not such a big deal. Microsoft Windows has the greatest inertia of all operating systems. You’d better bet your bippy that most developers whose applications have broken with the release of Vista are working hard to update their software so it works with Vista.
Which begs the question: How long should old hardware be supported? Five years? Ten?
Legacy hardware support should be dropped in new OS releases if such support will impact the system’s performance on target hardware platforms. However, back-level OS releases must remain in the service phase throughout the lifetime of the newest hardware platform that isn’t supported by newer OS releases. Typical lifetime for a hardware platform is 5-7 years for servers and 3-5 years for clients. In some extremely glacial sectors of the server market (mostly telcos), ultra-long-term support might be made available to big customers, perhaps out beyond 10 years.
“Microsoft Windows has the greatest inertia of all operating systems.”
“Newton’s first law of motion states that “An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.” Objects “tend to keep on doing what they’re doing.” In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.
Inertia = the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
LOL, It brings into focus exactly why Microsoft can’t change directions but continues along the same path to the end.
Oh dear oh dear
Thanks for making my day
.. against Apple.
This Apple document talks about iTunes and Vista:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305042
It specifically states that a new version of iTunes with Vista support will be out soon. Apple is just one of many, many software makers that do not yet fully support Vista.
The list does not EXCLUDE any program. It only includes applications that were submitted and found to be worthy. This is a “WHITELIST” of sorts..
Somehow people have the impression that this list has something to do with Microsoft “choosing” applications or supporting application. Plain and simple this is a list of applications that have gone to the trouble to voluntarily submit themselves for certification to Microsoft labs. This way they can use the Vista logo and call themselves “designed for Vista”. This is strictly for the benefit of the person submitting (although, of course, it also looks good for Microsoft). I have worked for companies that desired this, but it can be a pretty high hurdle for some. Some industries may even require this.
Maybe Microsoft should assist Apple in programing. Apple has had more than enough time to make iTunes Vista ready. It’s all buisness “politics” and it hurts the end user in the short-run.
I am running ITUNES on three computers running Windows VISTA Ultimate. It works perfectly.
….. that there will (before long) be *way more than 800* viruses etc which will be “Vista-compatible” 🙂
Edited 2007-02-26 21:57