D
D. Spencer Hines
Is Vista not Back Compatible with software that ran quite smoothly on 95,
98, 2000, et alia?
DSH
98, 2000, et alia?
DSH
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Adam Albright
Depends on the software. Some is, other stuff ain't.Is Vista not Back Compatible with software that ran quite smoothly on 95,
98, 2000, et alia?
DSH
R
Robert Firth
Depends on the program. A few months back, someone was showing some programs
off from Windows 3.1 that still work on Windows Vista. The only way to tell
is to try and see, or search Google for someone who already has.
--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
off from Windows 3.1 that still work on Windows Vista. The only way to tell
is to try and see, or search Google for someone who already has.
--
/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Robert Firth *
* Windows Vista x86 RTM *
* http://www.WinVistaInfo.org *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
L
Lang Murphy
Vista offers compatibility mode to, perhaps, let older software run in
Vista.
If it runs, you're golden. If it doesn't, well... time to upgrade.
Lang
Vista.
If it runs, you're golden. If it doesn't, well... time to upgrade.
Lang
D
D. Spencer Hines
I ran this Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor and it tells me all sorts of
MICROSOFT Programs may have "MINOR" compatibility problems with VISTA.
UNSAT!
DSH
---------------------------------------
MICROSOFT Programs may have "MINOR" compatibility problems with VISTA.
UNSAT!
DSH
---------------------------------------
J
Justin
Lang Murphy said:If it runs, you're golden. If it doesn't, well... time to upgrade.
That's unacceptable to a linux whore.
Win95? So 12 years ago? As we all know, all linux software for the past 12
years works on every distro of linux today......or something.
R
Richard
I've thought for a while that
R
Richard
I've thought for a while that you might just be a troll but this post has
confirmed it.
What does this have to do with microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize?
confirmed it.
What does this have to do with microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize?
J
john
D. Spencer Hines said:Is Vista not Back Compatible with software that ran quite smoothly on 95,
98, 2000, et alia?
The simple answer is no...
Microsoft is released TWO Vista-Compatible Logo Lists (for software
compatibility)
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933305)
There's the "Certified for Windows Vista" List, then there's the "Works with
Windows Vista" List.
The first one pretty much guarantees it will work in Vista, while the second
only IMPLIES it might.
Hats off to the boys in marketing.
As for the "Certified" list, there's only about 100 applications on it, a
quarter of which are MS's own
R
Richard Urban
Come on. You have been in these groups long enough to know the answer. You
are just trolling for responses.
--
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!
are just trolling for responses.
--
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!
D
D. Spencer Hines
It's Appalling!
We have all these programs that run quite smoothly and fast under Windows
XP ---- that now won't run at ALL under Vista.
To add insult to injury, many of them are MICROSOFT Programs.
What A Scam!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
We have all these programs that run quite smoothly and fast under Windows
XP ---- that now won't run at ALL under Vista.
To add insult to injury, many of them are MICROSOFT Programs.
What A Scam!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
R
Richard
Don't use Vista if you don't want to.
No-one is forcing you to do upgrade.
No-one is forcing you to do upgrade.
C
Conor
**** off back to XP then. See ya.D. Spencer Hines said:It's Appalling!
We have all these programs that run quite smoothly and fast under Windows
XP ---- that now won't run at ALL under Vista.
To add insult to injury, many of them are MICROSOFT Programs.
What A Scam!
J
Justin
D. Spencer Hines said:It's Appalling!
We have all these programs that run quite smoothly and fast under Windows
XP ---- that now won't run at ALL under Vista.
To add insult to injury, many of them are MICROSOFT Programs.
What A Scam!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
It's Appalling!
We have all these programs that run quite smoothly and fast under Windows
95 ---- that now won't run at ALL under XP.
To add insult to injury, many of them are MICROSOFT Programs.
What A Scam!
D
D. Spencer Hines
Strawman Red Herring.
DSH
----------------------------------
DSH
----------------------------------
L
Lang Murphy
Quite simple, Justin... if something is unacceptable, don't use it.
Personally, I have found the Linux distros I've tried, and it's not many, a
few different versions of RH and SuSE 10.2, totally unacceptable. But that
doesn't mean I'm going to start raving "Linux sucks." Obviously it "works"
for many... doesn't "work" for me. And I don't go troll in the Linux NG's
looking to rile things up. Not saying that's what you're doing but there
does seem to be a spike of trolls in here of late...
Lang
Personally, I have found the Linux distros I've tried, and it's not many, a
few different versions of RH and SuSE 10.2, totally unacceptable. But that
doesn't mean I'm going to start raving "Linux sucks." Obviously it "works"
for many... doesn't "work" for me. And I don't go troll in the Linux NG's
looking to rile things up. Not saying that's what you're doing but there
does seem to be a spike of trolls in here of late...
Lang
J
Justin
Lang Murphy said:Quite simple, Justin... if something is unacceptable, don't use it.
Personally, I have found the Linux distros I've tried, and it's not many,
a few different versions of RH and SuSE 10.2, totally unacceptable. But
that doesn't mean I'm going to start raving "Linux sucks." Obviously it
"works" for many... doesn't "work" for me.
Of course. Who said otherwise? I use Windows, OSX and Linux. In that
order.
I find Linux perfectly acceptable for certain scenarios. Not for business
desktop!
However, regardless of any of this, my comment still stands. It's
unacceptable to these Linux whores to have to upgrade an application because
of a new OS build. You disagree? They complain about frequently.
L
Lang Murphy
Well... I think we're treading a fine line here.... how old is the app in
question? If it's 5 years old, then, yeah, maybe it's time to upgrade. Or...
stick with XP if it runs on that. I'm running small utility type apps from
the late 90's on Vista without issue. I don't want to do a "deep dive" on
this, but there are standards for writing apps... if someone coded something
that runs on XP but it wasn't written to spec and it breaks in Vista...
well... <shrug>
Lang
question? If it's 5 years old, then, yeah, maybe it's time to upgrade. Or...
stick with XP if it runs on that. I'm running small utility type apps from
the late 90's on Vista without issue. I don't want to do a "deep dive" on
this, but there are standards for writing apps... if someone coded something
that runs on XP but it wasn't written to spec and it breaks in Vista...
well... <shrug>
Lang
J
Justin
Lang Murphy said:Well... I think we're treading a fine line here.... how old is the app in
I hear ya. You have an app you bought in 2006 and it was rather expensive
like....Photoshop CS2. There are many documented issues with this app in
Vista. Should Adobe force it's customers to upgrade to CS3? That wouldn't
be very smart! I'm pretty sure Adobe will launch a fix to take care of
everything.
but there are standards for writing apps... if someone coded something
that runs on XP but it wasn't written to spec and it breaks in Vista...
well... <shrug>
You have the third party app dev at fault. Not MS's OS. So in this case,
MS has nothing to do with it.
This issue reeks of people just being impatient.
The same thing happened with OSX. We had to use OS9 for a year after OSX's
release because Canon and Epson took their sweet time developing new drivers
for the large format printers and copiers we have. Then Canon released a
statement saying it had NO intention of updating drivers for one of our
copiers. After using OS9 classic for a month, we bought a new copier.
M
Martin C
Put simply - Get Vista if there is something in it that you NEED.
If that need is only for flashier and slick displays, but nothing else, then
go for it. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to Vista, but if it does not
give you something that you cannot get with XP (or any other OS for that
matter), then don't bother.
From a personal standpoint (which you may or may not agree with), I stayed
with Win98SE for a very long time, as I very rarely had any problems with
it, and all my apps and games worked well with it. From a lot of posts, it
would appear that I was one of the lucky ones as there has been a lot of bad
press on the unreliability of Win98. Ok, I had the occasional BSOD, but they
were rare and always recoverable. This may also be due to the safe way in
which I manage my PC (virus scanner, multiple spyware scanners, safe hex
etc) which can help to keep a PC more stable.
It was not until MS withdrew support for Win98SE that I upgraded to XP. That
was a NEED, if I wanted continued support in trying to maintain the
integrity of the system.
The first thing I noticed, when trying to reload my apps and games, is that
XP had quite a few problems with some of them. Some continued to work
seamlessly; some needed help in getting them to work (thanks to newsgroups
like this one and Google); some simply would not work with XP at all.
The second thing I noticed - the compatibility mode to get XP to emulate
older OS systems was totally useless. I have not managed to get any of my
older apps or games that did not work in native XP to work in compabitility
mode. I cannot say if the same will happen with Vista's compatibility mode,
but don't hold your breath.
Subsequently I am running on a smaller range of apps and games now. I have
to get more up to date apps for some of them. I may consider using a second
HDD to run the ones I need or want that work with Win98SE (without internet
access, of course).
I fully intend to remain with XP until the same problem occurs and I am
forced to move to Vista, or if there is something on it that I NEED.
In summary:
Upgrade if you NEED something (or really want it)
Expect to lose some of your apps and games
Expect to have to upgrade to a more recent version of some apps
Expect to have to tweak a lot of things to get some to work
Don't rely on compatibility mode - it is not guaranteed (although I may have
just been unlucky)
If you are happy with XP, stop complaining about what Vista can and cannot
do and just stick with what works for you. XP is not perfect, but for now, I
certainly don't want more problems I don't need. I have, so far, read enough
to know that Vista is not for me just yet. Decide for yourself.
Martin
If that need is only for flashier and slick displays, but nothing else, then
go for it. No one is forcing anyone to upgrade to Vista, but if it does not
give you something that you cannot get with XP (or any other OS for that
matter), then don't bother.
From a personal standpoint (which you may or may not agree with), I stayed
with Win98SE for a very long time, as I very rarely had any problems with
it, and all my apps and games worked well with it. From a lot of posts, it
would appear that I was one of the lucky ones as there has been a lot of bad
press on the unreliability of Win98. Ok, I had the occasional BSOD, but they
were rare and always recoverable. This may also be due to the safe way in
which I manage my PC (virus scanner, multiple spyware scanners, safe hex
etc) which can help to keep a PC more stable.
It was not until MS withdrew support for Win98SE that I upgraded to XP. That
was a NEED, if I wanted continued support in trying to maintain the
integrity of the system.
The first thing I noticed, when trying to reload my apps and games, is that
XP had quite a few problems with some of them. Some continued to work
seamlessly; some needed help in getting them to work (thanks to newsgroups
like this one and Google); some simply would not work with XP at all.
The second thing I noticed - the compatibility mode to get XP to emulate
older OS systems was totally useless. I have not managed to get any of my
older apps or games that did not work in native XP to work in compabitility
mode. I cannot say if the same will happen with Vista's compatibility mode,
but don't hold your breath.
Subsequently I am running on a smaller range of apps and games now. I have
to get more up to date apps for some of them. I may consider using a second
HDD to run the ones I need or want that work with Win98SE (without internet
access, of course).
I fully intend to remain with XP until the same problem occurs and I am
forced to move to Vista, or if there is something on it that I NEED.
In summary:
Upgrade if you NEED something (or really want it)
Expect to lose some of your apps and games
Expect to have to upgrade to a more recent version of some apps
Expect to have to tweak a lot of things to get some to work
Don't rely on compatibility mode - it is not guaranteed (although I may have
just been unlucky)
If you are happy with XP, stop complaining about what Vista can and cannot
do and just stick with what works for you. XP is not perfect, but for now, I
certainly don't want more problems I don't need. I have, so far, read enough
to know that Vista is not for me just yet. Decide for yourself.
Martin
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.