Does any software work with Vista?

[johnm]

John

if you had a family of seven, and you needed t buy transport to get them
all around, would you just buy anything and hope that there was seating
for seven provided, or would you look into it first?

....by "looking into it" I can only assume you mean check out system
compatibility by using either MS's HCL or the Upgrade Advisor, or both.
OK, I'll play along.

I did, both the HCL and the UA said "all systems go" - with the minor
exception of asking that I first uninstall my anti-virus.
no problem - pretty standard request for such an undertaking actually.

Cool, nothing but green lights.... let's install this thing.... a clean
install was done, NOT an in place upgrade.
With something as important as an OS upgrade, I ALWAYS clean install, no
point in inviting trouble with leftover "baggage"
Install was actually pretty uneventful, took all of 35 minutes - I liked
that I did n't have to babysit the installation like I did in XP

1st issue - my 2 month old ATI AIW 2006 was listed as "fine & dandy"
- however both the HCL & UA neglected to inform me that the only drivers for
the damn thing were the "beta-grade" garbage offered by AMD-ATI.
Now, I'm stuck with 1024 resolution on a 19" widescreen.
- Neither informed me that the TV Tuner and FM receptor would now become
doorstop material, as there were no drivers, and ATI has already informed me
via a support ticket, that they have no plans to support it. Buy a new card
they said.

2nd issue - my 2 month old SoundBlaster X-Fi was listed as "okie dokie"
- however both the HCL & UA neglected to inform me that the only drivers for
the damn thing were the "beta-grade" garbage offered by Creative.
Now, my speakers exhibit a constant hum when no audio is being played, and
the crackle, sputter and cut out when I do.

I hardly consider either of these items to be "exotic" - both are
mainstream, well-known, "standard" even, hardware.

Other hardware issues, a USB hub doesn't work. An internal card-reader
doesn't work. An external SanDisk card reader doesn't work.

Yea, I know - these issues are all my fault... for shame...

 

[Gary VanderMolen]

And they typically post from discussions.microsoft.com.
Wonder why that is? ;-)

Gary VanderMolen

anybody notice that the original poster has not bothered to come back to see if anyone has any help to offer.

this is happening a lot.

makes me wonder who is putting them up to all these complaints about vista.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

John

Nobody is blaming you for them not working or not working particularly well,
BUT they were the drivers submitted to MS by the hardware manufacturers..

ATI have released a version 7.2 of the Catalyst driver which you make like
to try.. for the others you will have to visit individual websites..

I have sent e-mails out to hardware companies and received the same response
from all, essentially 'we are working on it'.. both ATI and nVidia are
really struggling to produce anything meaningful, even for new products, and
HP and Creative are looking to dump parts of the older product range and
simply doing nothing about the driver problems..

...by "looking into it" I can only assume you mean check out system
compatibility by using either MS's HCL or the Upgrade Advisor, or both.
OK, I'll play along.

I did, both the HCL and the UA said "all systems go" - with the minor
exception of asking that I first uninstall my anti-virus.
no problem - pretty standard request for such an undertaking actually.

Cool, nothing but green lights.... let's install this thing.... a clean
install was done, NOT an in place upgrade.
With something as important as an OS upgrade, I ALWAYS clean install, no
point in inviting trouble with leftover "baggage"
Install was actually pretty uneventful, took all of 35 minutes - I liked
that I did n't have to babysit the installation like I did in XP

1st issue - my 2 month old ATI AIW 2006 was listed as "fine & dandy"
- however both the HCL & UA neglected to inform me that the only drivers
for the damn thing were the "beta-grade" garbage offered by AMD-ATI.
Now, I'm stuck with 1024 resolution on a 19" widescreen.
- Neither informed me that the TV Tuner and FM receptor would now become
doorstop material, as there were no drivers, and ATI has already informed
me via a support ticket, that they have no plans to support it. Buy a new
card they said.

2nd issue - my 2 month old SoundBlaster X-Fi was listed as "okie dokie"
- however both the HCL & UA neglected to inform me that the only drivers
for the damn thing were the "beta-grade" garbage offered by Creative.
Now, my speakers exhibit a constant hum when no audio is being played, and
the crackle, sputter and cut out when I do.

I hardly consider either of these items to be "exotic" - both are
mainstream, well-known, "standard" even, hardware.

Other hardware issues, a USB hub doesn't work. An internal card-reader
doesn't work. An external SanDisk card reader doesn't work.

Yea, I know - these issues are all my fault... for shame...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Mike;
While that sounds good, it is not really a good answer.
There is no guarantee hardware or software incompatible today will be
compatible after a Service Pack.
Certainly it should not be expected for the Service Pack to resolve
compatibility issues.

Some people can install the new operating system right away and have 100%
compatibility with essential hardware and software while others may be the
opposite.
The owner needs to research compatibility of essential hardware and software
before upgrading anything whether the upgrade is done immediately or a few
years down the road.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

A lot of software does and a lot does not, same applies to hardware.

Check with the manufacturers and find out if there are Vista driver updates
for the hardware and updates or patches for the software.

You should research with the hardware/software manufacturer Vista
compatibility of anything essential before upgrading.
There are a few tools referenced on this page that can help:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/instvista.htm

If nothing resolves your issues, consider returning the laptop as long as
you have not had it past the return date.

 

[Dale]

I think you have a point. I have been trying to get WordStar for CP/M
working with transparent borders on my DEC VT100 terminal plugged into my
serial port on Vista for days and I can't get the darn thing working.

Dale

 

[Gary VanderMolen]

It is indeed a shame that many manufacturers don't have
suitable Vista drivers for their products. I anticipated this,
and therefore configured my PC to dual-boot between Vista
and XP. When I need to use a device or program that doesn't
work in Vista I just boot into XP. Having upgraded my OS
quite a few times over the past 22 years, I expect and prepare
for problems.

Gary VanderMolen

 

[Brian W]

Funny, I haven't found any programs yet that don't work with Vista.

 

[John Barnett MVP]

While it is easy to blame Microsoft for ever PC woe one must appreciate that
developing an operating system is a two way street. On one side you have
Microsoft and on the other you have third party software developers and
driver developers.

There is a large number of software applications that 'still' will not work
on Vista. This isn't Microsoft's fault, it is the fault of the software
developers. I have asked many software companies 'when will a copy or update
of a copy be available to run on vista', the answer is, generally, 'when we
are ready to make it work on vista.'

Driver manufacturers have also had ample opportunity to develop drivers for
Vista, but they haven't. Some of the very large hardware manufacturers have
been extremely slow to even update drivers. I have an HP PSC printer which
is 2 years old. HP have developed a 'basic' driver which enables it to work
on Vista. Yes, it works, but i have no refinements like i had in XP. So how
do i get these refinements? Well not from the printer i have at the moment.
My only alternative is to buy another printer that 'is' vista compatible.

Many developer's didn't even both to think about updating drivers until
vista was actually released. While i didn't have much hardware problems
during the early beta testing of vista there were many beta testers that
simply couldn't use vista at all because no vista drivers were available for
there hardware.

While i am of the opinion that Microsoft is 'partly' to blame one should
never forget that there is two sides to every story


--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

 

[Stephan Rose]

While it is easy to blame Microsoft for ever PC woe one must appreciate that
developing an operating system is a two way street. On one side you have
Microsoft and on the other you have third party software developers and
driver developers.

There is a large number of software applications that 'still' will not work
on Vista. This isn't Microsoft's fault, it is the fault of the software
developers. I have asked many software companies 'when will a copy or update
of a copy be available to run on vista', the answer is, generally, 'when we
are ready to make it work on vista.'

Actually yes it IS Microsofts fault.

If the application works on Win98, Win2000, or WinXP but NOT on Vista
then *YES* it is Microsoft's fault.

If the driver works on previous versions of windows but NOT on Vista
then *YES* it is Microsoft's fault.

Vista utterly lacks the #1 feature it needs to have: Backwards
compatability.

Software Developers place their trust into Microsoft by supporting
windows. Microsoft no longer supporting their applictations in new
versions breaks this trust.

The same goes for the user. Users invest time and money into
applications they may need to make their living. If they are no longer
supported under the new operating system for whatever reason then
Microsofts severely screws over its own users and breaks their trust
as well.

People don't need fancy new buttons, they need reliablity and
compatability.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

kimi no koto omoidasu hi nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga nai kara

 

[Richard Urban]

I have a set of tires from 1922 that don't work on my 2007 Ford.

Ford sucks!

You really have no right working with computers at all.

Why should a modern operating system bend over backwards to accommodate
programs that were poorly written and didn't follow accepted
standards/practices, or tried to cheat to do things that no one else could
do?

I am GLAD, GLAD, GLAD that these older programs are finally being weeded
out. It's about time.

I have said it before, and I will say it again now. Microsoft should break
the mold, toss out ALL the old technology, and write a brand new operating
system - just like Apple did.

There would be NO previous program that would work with the new operating
system because NONE of them would be up to the new security standards. Maybe
then the need for UAC would be minimized or even eliminated.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[johnm]

I guess that you are every retailer dream. A person who doesn't do any
research prior to purchasing an expensive item.

you're absolutely correct.

using MS's own Hardware Compatibiity List (HCL) and the Upgrade Advisor do
NOT count as research, as both are merely marketing tools
accuracy and honesty are secondary concerns
but you already knew that

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Stephan

There were a good few programs that never made the transition from Win 98 to
Win NT variants, some not at all, but they have long been forgotten..

The didn't make the transition because NT handles some processes differently
to the old DOS based Windows.. in other cases, software authors included
identifier detection into their products such that they could NOT be run on
the next Windows, thereby forcing the end user to purchase the 'latest'
version..

In what way is any of the above the fault of MS?

Drivers are little different to what I have already stated.. if badly
written, scarcely tested drivers are submitted to MS in all good faith that
they are supposed to work, what exactly can Microsoft do about it if they
don't?

Bear in mind that Vista has been around for compatibility testing for almost
two years.. the companies that have not made their products to work across
the entire range of Windows have done so to avoid financial suicide on their
part.. they can't realistically just sell one product back in '98 and then
give free updates, patches and code to keep improving it forever.. they have
to sell new products..

Re backwards compatibility, this is why the PC still has limitations.. while
it is not in the interests of the home user with limited funds to have to
keep upgrading, the ability of the PC and the architecture on which it is
based, has prevented the PC becoming what everybody would like it to be..
the company most responsible for holding the PC back was IBM, whose love
affair with backwards compatibility was way longer lived than ever it should
have been.. because we are stuck with the old architecture, the OS
manufacturer is left with the task of pushing the boat forwards..

There is no other OS or company where so much is expected of it than Windows
and MS.. everybody expects it to run flawlessly on any combination of parts,
new and old, cobbled together in some instances by complete amateurs.. in
time, many users get to iron out the flaws and end up with a decent, stable,
polished system that does all that they want..

Actually yes it IS Microsofts fault.

If the application works on Win98, Win2000, or WinXP but NOT on Vista
then *YES* it is Microsoft's fault.

If the driver works on previous versions of windows but NOT on Vista
then *YES* it is Microsoft's fault.

Vista utterly lacks the #1 feature it needs to have: Backwards
compatability.

Software Developers place their trust into Microsoft by supporting
windows. Microsoft no longer supporting their applictations in new
versions breaks this trust.

The same goes for the user. Users invest time and money into
applications they may need to make their living. If they are no longer
supported under the new operating system for whatever reason then
Microsofts severely screws over its own users and breaks their trust
as well.

People don't need fancy new buttons, they need reliablity and
compatability.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

kimi no koto omoidasu hi nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga nai kara

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Stephan Rose]

I have a set of tires from 1922 that don't work on my 2007 Ford.

Ford sucks!

Actually Ford does suck but for other reasons.

You really have no right working with computers at all.

Oh so now you are here to tell me what rights I have and don't have?

Simply expecting my software to work is the wrong expectation?

Why should a modern operating system bend over backwards to accommodate
programs that were poorly written and didn't follow accepted
standards/practices, or tried to cheat to do things that no one else could
do?

I am not saying support software written 8 years ago. There obviously
is a point in time where too old is too old.

I maybe went a little overboard with listing win98 and 2000, fine.

Anything written for XP however should run on Vista, period.

I am GLAD, GLAD, GLAD that these older programs are finally being weeded
out. It's about time.

So a program developed for XP last year is an older program that needs
to be weeded out?

I have said it before, and I will say it again now. Microsoft should break
the mold, toss out ALL the old technology, and write a brand new operating
system - just like Apple did.

There would be NO previous program that would work with the new operating
system because NONE of them would be up to the new security standards. Maybe
then the need for UAC would be minimized or even eliminated.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

kimi no koto omoidasu hi nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga nai kara

 

[Robert Robinson]

Hi Brian,

There are many widely used programs that do not run on Vista. A few
examples are: QuickBooks 2006, NaturallySpeaking Professional and
ZoneAlarm. Even Microsoft's own VisualStudio 2005 and SQL Server 2005
install with warning messages that there "may be an issue" with this
operating system.
I agree that "well behaved" programs generally run properly. The
incompatibilities usually arise because some application programs like
to scatter code all over the system partition including the registry,
assembly, and other system areas. The reason for doing this sometimes
relates to content protection rather than other purposes. There can also
be obvious conflicts with Vista's protection methods.
Upgrading application programs for Vista compatibility may be a very
expensive proposition; for example, QuickBooks multi-user is $900+.
A second issue is that it appears that, for a least some application
programs, a Vista edition will not be backward compatible with the
XP/Server 2003 operating systems.
Microsoft has repeatedly changed the operating system driver design;
hopefully, in an effort to improve efficiency, reliability and ease of
driver software development. Nevertheless, the changes and the typical
lack of backward compatibility create major problems for hardware
vendors, especially if they happen to be small sized companies.
Interesting, some XP/Server 2003 drivers do work on Vista. There are,
unfortunately, two additional issues. One is that the driver software
installers may reject the installation based on not recognizing the name
of the OS. Sometimes this limitation can be circumvented by "run as" or
editing an install file. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to modify
the install files in some of the newer installers. We have run into this
problem recently in attempting to install a Vista driver on Longhorn.
The driver should work since the OS code is basically this same, but the
installer rejects the installation.
Finally, there is the issue of driver certificates. One would like to
think that requiring certified drivers might improve reliability, but it
is more likely that this is another misguided attempt at content protection.

 

[Richard Urban]

If a WinXP program has been written poorly you are darn right it should be
dumped. Any Intuit application fits into this boat. They are all no good,
and haven't been for years. Yeah, they work - so what. Now they don't! And
Intuit isn't even giving free upgrades for what they sold just last year.
They want you to buy QuickBooks again, at full price.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Stephan Rose]

Stephan

There were a good few programs that never made the transition from Win 98 to
Win NT variants, some not at all, but they have long been forgotten..

The didn't make the transition because NT handles some processes differently
to the old DOS based Windows.. in other cases, software authors included
identifier detection into their products such that they could NOT be run on
the next Windows, thereby forcing the end user to purchase the 'latest'
version..

In what way is any of the above the fault of MS?

If the author of a program deliberatly prevents the user from running
it on a higher version software even though the operating system would
run it just fine, then no...that's not the fault of the operating
system.

Drivers are little different to what I have already stated.. if badly
written, scarcely tested drivers are submitted to MS in all good faith that
they are supposed to work, what exactly can Microsoft do about it if they
don't?

If they work perfectly fine, stable, and reliably on the modern
operating system of 1 month ago there is nothing unreasonable
expecting them to work on the new operating system as well.

It's not an impossible thing to do, MS simply doesn't *want* it.

But who gets to suffer from it? The users and other companies
dependant on it.

I actually have software I have developed that will not run under
Vista because the 3rd party USB security key we use (and no, there are
no viable alternatives with the specs I need, I was happy I even found
that one) will not work under Vista.

The funniest thing is, that key doesn't even use proprietary drivers!
It uses MS' own smartcard drivers...which won't work under Vista
apparently.

Bear in mind that Vista has been around for compatibility testing for almost
two years.. the companies that have not made their products to work across
the entire range of Windows have done so to avoid financial suicide on their
part.. they can't realistically just sell one product back in '98 and then
give free updates, patches and code to keep improving it forever.. they have
to sell new products..

Well with all honesty, if the only new "feature" on a program is "it
now runs on the new operating system" then it isn't a new product, its
a rip-off.

If the company doesn't have enough innovation to actually release REAL
new products that actually have new features that are beneficial to
the user then maybe they SHOULD suicide as obviously they are no
longer capable of staying in business.

That smells awfully like vista, lots of problems in a shiny new
package with no actual beneficial features.

Re backwards compatibility, this is why the PC still has limitations.. while
it is not in the interests of the home user with limited funds to have to
keep upgrading, the ability of the PC and the architecture on which it is
based, has prevented the PC becoming what everybody would like it to be..
the company most responsible for holding the PC back was IBM, whose love
affair with backwards compatibility was way longer lived than ever it should
have been.. because we are stuck with the old architecture, the OS
manufacturer is left with the task of pushing the boat forwards..

Personally I like my PC very much and it is everything I like it to
be, especially without vista on it.

There is no other OS or company where so much is expected of it than Windows
and MS.. everybody expects it to run flawlessly on any combination of parts,
new and old, cobbled together in some instances by complete amateurs.. in
time, many users get to iron out the flaws and end up with a decent, stable,
polished system that does all that they want..

Yup, it was known as XP.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

kimi no koto omoidasu hi nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga nai kara

 

[MAP]

Mike;
While that sounds good, it is not really a good answer.
There is no guarantee hardware or software incompatible today will be
compatible after a Service Pack.
Certainly it should not be expected for the Service Pack to resolve
compatibility issues.

Some people can install the new operating system right away and have
100% compatibility with essential hardware and software while others
may be the opposite.
The owner needs to research compatibility of essential hardware and
software before upgrading anything whether the upgrade is done
immediately or a few years down the road.

Yes I cound'nt agree more "research is the key" and I'm not saying that a
service pack will fix the troubles I'm saying that after the sp venders are
more likely to update their software for the new OS.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

That's terrible news re the tires. .can you take them back and get a refund?

I have a set of tires from 1922 that don't work on my 2007 Ford.

Ford sucks!

You really have no right working with computers at all.

Why should a modern operating system bend over backwards to accommodate
programs that were poorly written and didn't follow accepted
standards/practices, or tried to cheat to do things that no one else could
do?

I am GLAD, GLAD, GLAD that these older programs are finally being weeded
out. It's about time.

I have said it before, and I will say it again now. Microsoft should break
the mold, toss out ALL the old technology, and write a brand new operating
system - just like Apple did.

There would be NO previous program that would work with the new operating
system because NONE of them would be up to the new security standards.
Maybe then the need for UAC would be minimized or even eliminated.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Richard Urban]

If that perfectly functional program you bought a month ago for XP worked
fine, but did not follow even the standards for XP (many don't), I would not
expect it to work under Vista - where the standards are being enforced.

Too bad if you have that particular program. It is up to the purchaser of
said program, and the company that released it in the sorry condition that
it is, to resolve the problem

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!