You honestly think MS cares what you are doing online?
Posted on 06/16/2008 8:39:11 PM PDT by twntaipan
And to think Microsoft used to be popular with the developer crowd...
Not anymore. A recent report from Evans Data shows fewer than one in 10 software developers writing applications for Windows Vista this year. Eight percent. This is perhaps made even worse by the corresponding data that shows 49 percent of developers writing applications for Windows XP.
Such appreciation for history is not likely to warm the cockles of Microsoft's heart, especially when Linux is getting lots of love from developers (13 percent writing apps for it this year and 15.5 percent in 2009). The Mac? I don't have any equivalent data via Evans Data. But the Mac OS has rocketed by 380 percent as a targeted development platform, Evans Data told Computerworld.
The numbers don't get much better for Vista in 2009: 24 percent (compared with 29 percent for XP). That's a big step up from 8 percent, but is it a sign of momentum to come or just a temporary stopgap while developers wait until Windows 7?
Nor has Microsoft made it easy to develop Vista applications, according to an article in ITJungle.com:
Unfortunately, that improved security posture makes it more difficult for developers to write applications for Vista (read: no more kernel-level access and UAC to worry about), and it also causes compatibility problems with older applications. Ironically, the wave of attacks targeting operating system vulnerabilities has largely passed, and today hackers have moved on to target applications. At the same time, Microsoft has provided iterative improvements in Windows XP security, bolstering its status as "good enough" and further eating into Vista's pie.
Indeed. Microsoft doesn't need to handicap itself on the desktop given its difficulties competing everywhere else. With Linux and the Mac taking ever-increasing shares of the developer pie, Microsoft would do well to shore up developer support for Windows.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, that probably means re-investing in XP and forgetting its "New Coke" moment with Vista.
I refused to own a machine running Vista. I don’t want Microsoft to know what I do. Even if it’s just purchasing shirts off the internet.
You honestly think MS cares what you are doing online?
Developers should like Vista. It should make them feel better about their own slow, bloated code.
Check out what the Microsoft phishing filter *really* doea.
Use Firefox =o)
Tech ping!
Better solution - don’t support companies that promulgate such things. I use Firefox... on a Mac.
Vista has much bigger problems than developers. IT people won’t let their companies near it for very good reason.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
That’s what the PlayStation3 is for.
Or, rather, since there are no video cards that *really* support dX10 just yet, you might find that difficult to do...
Oh, and while you’re trying to one up me on the geek scale? I’d like to see *you* build your own vintage Jaguar out of a giant pile of parts and then use it as a daily driver.
Call me back when you’ve achieved that level. Compared to that, building a computer from off the shelf parts is both unimportant and trivial.
Actually many XP compatible software apps won’t install on Vista due to security settings. However a lot of older Win95 software runs perfectly well.
There is a huge demand for Vista compatible software. Eventually someone is going to figure out that you can make a ton of money porting applications to Vista.
I see the anti-Mac argument has come full circle from the days when Macintosh was sneeringly dismissed as a "toy" computer for kids and grandmas, and all the hardheaded business types used Windows to get real work done.
Nowadays, I have gone 100% OS X because I have important business to attend to, I don't play any computer games, and my time is much too valuable to waste in building my own computer and keeping it free of spyware and viruses. I shall leave that to the unemployed pasty-faced basement-dwelling hobbyists who actually care about crap like DirectX. If I want to play a game, I'll use my boy's X-Box.
-ccm
After shutting itself down and rebooting, this morning my Vista laptop informed me that it needed to download and update. The update was a mere 196mb. I don’t care what planet you come from 196mb isn’t an update. That is a system reconfiguration.
1. PS3 and PC gaming are not comparable. Yes many game titles do cross publish, but there are many differences. This is especially true in MMORPG’s
2. PS3 does not use DX10
3. If my 8800GTX is not *relay* running DX10 while I'm playing Crysis, then I'm impressed buy it's imitation.
When it comes down to it different OS's and different hardware configurations are suited to different needs.
That’s because the vast majority of applications that run on XP run just as well on Vista.
Sheesh, the crapola that gets passed off as “tech news” around here.
You should see the condition of some of the aircraft we put back together for the Navy. I may be a computer geek, but I'm also a mechanic. Given that I don't have the said pile of parts, I cant get that done. But, I'm sure with the right tools I could.
I never said Vista was not a royal pain in the ass. Most of these problems have workarounds.
No they don't quite a lot of old proprietary business software is intentionally disabled by Vista. If you were running a heating and air company, and your manual J software wouldn't work anymore after getting a supposed operating system upgrade - you would be just as unhappy as a lot of the people driving the big Vista backlash.
Business people don't care if you can still play recent games or not
LOL
I'll give credit where it is due. Mac makes a solid business platform. I usually tell people who ask me what kind of commuter they should buy this: If you are doing to buy a computer from the store, with a name on the side, go get a Mac. If you want to build the latest gaming rig, then lets go look at some hardware on newegg.com
The cynic in me says that the divorce of the PC as the premier gaming platform is a win for the tech world. Why sell one appliance when you can sell two?
bump for read tomorrow.
Who told you that bald-faced one?!
Vista most certainly won't run XP drivers (drivers are software, by the way).
Vista completely broke backwards compatibility with earlier versions of Windows. Try installing an old Quickbooks program onto Vista. Won't happen. Peachtree? Nope.
See XP machines on your Vista network? Not likely...especially not printers.
Microsoft could have had all of the above by simply shipping XP with Vista, and giving the user the option of either dual-booting directly to XP, or running XP in a Vista virtual window.
But instead of doing the above (which would have allowed Vista developers to start coding from scratch instead of being tied to legacy code), Microsoft instead piled massive layers of new code in Server03/XP and called that amalgamation "Vista."
They should have just called it "Train Wreck."
See post #26.
please inform me what you cannot install. everything has worked for me. maybe it was some highend proprietary products?
I’m not saying Vista is Gods gift to the PC. As for drivers, I was not talking about drivers. I was referring to applications. You listed a few there that don’t work. I believe you, I had to install XP on a virtual machine to run Solidworks. I also have a few XP applications that are running just fine, and some that required me to set the “XP application” and “run as admin” to work. As for the XP computers showing up on the network, no problems there. My printer is also a network printer and it works just fine too. As I said before, most of the problems have a work around. It’s a pain, yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t need a hack for every little thing you wanted to do. I guess if that was what I was interested in I would get a Mac. Personally I like the challenge.
My Vista laptop has no problem seeing the XP boxes on my network. WTF is up with that? I’m sure they know they need to be plugged in.
Although, Vista is responsible for my gout and low sperm count.
windows firewall
look, most all products made to run on win2k and xp work, hell alot of win95 products work too. xp came out 6 years ago so your software is at least 6 years old, you got your moneys worth out of it, time to up grade, sometimes the upgrade has better features. I am sure there were good programs on a tandy1000 back in the day
this article gives a good discription. I will give a few tips convert xp to ntfs, it should already be but I have seen a few xp installs that were not, ntfs is better IMO and they give you some warnings about converting , I have done this to several pc's, it works. Make sure you have an administrator account on all pc's with the same password or put a user on all with the same password. XP home has a hidden admin log in to it in safe mode chances are the "administrator" user's password is blank, change it. make sure sharing is enable on the folders.
sorry, veni, I thought you said HAS PROBLEMS. I need to read better.
“Personally I like the challenge”
Personally I don’t have the time. You guys get this sorted out and let us non-techie’s know what to do. Thanks.
A fat bloated clone with window dressing up the kazoo. I have to work with Windows for business reasons but I will stay with XP until they pry it from my cold dead motherboard.
>>The update was a mere 196mb.
I suspect that was Service Pack One (SP1) for Vista which came out recently.
Our company of 300 computers stopped buying Vista operating system PCs after our first two we received turned into a nightmare.
Backward compatibility is not “completely broken”. That’s hyperbole. I can come up with many examples of lousy software that runs just fine on Vista. If it’s not working, then it’s generally doing something it shouldn’t be. I didn’t have to replace a single piece of software when I moved my home PCs from XP to Vista. Not a single one. Furthermore, if a piece of hardware didn’t have a Vista driver - like my two Epson printers, or my Canon scanner, or my Magellan GPS - the XP drive worked fine in the interim.
Is that always the case? No. But a least my experience is based on trying it - not emotion and the work of click-pimps who need to publish incendiary commentary to sell banner ads.
You know, like calculating heating loads and CFM to pump into a room, all that stuff your computer shouldn't do anyway. Not buying new software because the old software is paid for is just wrong.
Go ask the software vendor why their lousy software doesn’t work and when it’ll be fixed. Since the OS has been out more than a year, I suspect that you’d rather bitch than demand accountability from the actual makers of your software.
You know, for years I've been hearing that because hardware manufacturers won't release drivers for Linux somehow this makes Linux "not ready," and somehow it becomes the fault of Linux.
So by that definition, since software vendors won't release updates to run on Vista, does this make Vista "not ready?" And is it Microsoft's fault?
They probably don't care what I'm doing on the pot, either, but I'm not taking the door off the bathroom. Private means private.
I found it irritating to have to relearn where everything is on the apps.
So you're saying all XP software is known to have been written prior to XP's release?? Rather, I think we can more safely say his software is AT MOST 6 years old, and in fact could have been written as recently as 2006 and still been for the latest Windows at the time. Sounds like more of an argument why it should still work than an argument why he should upgrade.
Depends. A lot of hardware vendors use the release of a new OS version to enforce planned obsolescence to get users to update hardware. If a component is, say, ten years old then no it doesn’t make business sense to maintain support for it. In other cases, is a bald-faced attempt to export money out of unsuspecting users.
In the case of hardware drivers and to a greater extent software, backward compatability is broken to close an attack vector. It happens with every OS, but it seems that some get a pass (OS9 to OSX, or Linux 2.x to 3.x), while others don’t.
Those of you who prefer Linux didn’t seem to care about backward compatibility when Windows wasn’t secure. But now that it is, for some reason it’s a priority. Curious, but not at all surprising.
Eh? What is this Linux 3.x thing? The most current Linux kernel is 2.6.
But besides that, I can easily boot Linux kernel 0.99 on just about any commodity hardware. Support can be had and new drivers can be written although you may have to pony up and hire someone to do it. Try that with Windows 3.11.
Those of you who prefer Linux didn’t seem to care about backward compatibility when Windows wasn’t secure.
Those of us who prefer Linux haven't had to care about backward compatibility. My code from 1999 works just as well today on a 2.6 kernel and new hardware as it did then. Code written for Linux on a Sun Sparcstation 5 will compile on an AMD64. Backward compatibility is always possible with Linux. It may require some work, but it's possible. Contrast that with the proprietary world where backward compatibility is a joke and often induced simply to sell new software.
Curious, but not at all surprising.
What? That Linux detractors make stuff up to try and prove a point?
Well, I agree.
I just found that upgrading various components of my PC every year or so to keep up with the games was getting more expensive than just buying a console every five years. And as opposed to one PC configuration the games just get better over a console’s lifetime as the developers better learn how to take advantage of the hardware (this is especially true for the PS3, and previouly the Nintendo 64). Now the only things my family plays on the Mac or PC are the little Popcap-type games or old games for nostalgia (the last Populous was great). Serious gaming gets done on the consoles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.