Comments on: Vista's big problem: 92 percent of developers ignoring it

The OS certainly isn't helping Microsoft's popularity with developers. Can it repair the problem?

[bdaughtry]

A classic example of Microsoft bungling. I've been a software engineer for 25 years......and I won't touch Vista.

[Lerianis]

Why? It is just as easy, if not EASIER, to code for Windows Vista. You just have to be smart enough to code so that your applications don't have to run in Administrator mode, which isn't very hard.

[bdplaid]

Rename Vista to Microsoft Bob (remember that one?) and call it a day.

[kenpofighta]

Oh wow, I have seen ignorant articles like this before but this one is over the top. Most Windows developers these days are developing against the .Net framework and to say they are targeting a particular platform (i.e. XP, Vista) is evidence of a lack of knowledge. You are indeed showing your ignorance.

I write an application and it just works on Vista and XP, I don't have to target Vista to make it work. I could use one of the new technologies like WCF and take advantage of some of the newer features of Vista, that is an option, not a requirement. The beauty is that I don't have to target a platform in .Net, it just works. Only misuse of a survey written to support a particular view could come up with such ridiculous results as this. The truth is that more than 92% of Windows developers use .Net and that means all of them develop products that do indeed work on Vista. The real story is that they are not ignoring it, they don't have to worry about it because it just works on Vista.

You can use data and statistics to bend a story anyway you want and you have obviously used this data to do that. It just shows the type of shotty, biased journalism I have come to expect from you.

[Lerianis]

Finally, someone who is SMART and realizes that the problem is that some developers are just too 'snobby' to code for Vista.

[Composer_1777]

nice comment. I'm not gonna get into all the reasons MS is getting a bad rep but all of the reasons are from people reasons , not company or performance reasons.

[kahlua001]

Not entirely correct. If you are not touching system level stuff with .Net you should be fine. I recently had to port a XP app over to Vista and had to find out the hard way the lack of support for the changes Vista makes for interop calls. Not to mention the tighter security makes its harder to create setup packages that require sql server and access rights to it. Vista is nice for sure, however, MS is not being nice to its developers.

[TimInVA]

If you are using .net and not targeting Vista-specific features, you are developing for XP; Vista runs most apps as compatible, but there are minor exceptions. Your comment shows you do not know what it means to "develop for Vista".

[kahlua001]

You just said Vista runs "most" apps, and there are minor exceptions(however you dont point them out). Case in point, the new Mobile Device Center that replaces ActiveSync, good luck trying to find any documentation on its new Rapi dll. This is not a minor exception, there are tons of programs that use ActiveSync and mobile devices that have to rewritten for Vista becuase of this incompatibility. Its not as if you can continue using ActiveSync in Vista, its gone, replaced, not supported any longer, what you expect to work in XP will not simply work in Vista at least not the way you thought it would ;)

[Renegade Knight]

A targeted platform is a marketing decision. That you can develop for multiple platforms is just a bonus. If your target is "broad compatability" that's another target thats different than Vista specificly. The difference may be suble but it's worth noting and it's valid.

[Urbane.Tiger]

All pwer to you sir, all power

[splendidcrm]

I agree with ken. While my company does not specifically target Vista, we do make sure that our .NET application installs and runs on Vista. Why would any developer want to write an application that only runs on Vista? Actually, I suspect that 8% of the Windows developers fall into that category. The rest of us realize that must of our customers will be running either Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, so we have to go where the customers are.

[stringboy]

The author obviously has a anti-Vista slant, but the point is still the same. The Vista advantages are not being used and Vista has been a failure compared to Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 08, and Win XP.

[Lerianis]

The Vista advantages ARE being used.... it is just that developers realize that Windows XP is still the biggest OS out there right now (give it a year or two, that will change totally) so they have to make sure that their applications work on Windows XP as well as Windows Vista.

[delf76]

I agree with both Ken and Splendiccrm.... This article is just plain stupid. I don't understand why there has to be so many aticles on CNET just looking for any excuse to Bash Microsoft. This is another example.

[The_happy_switcher]

Because Microsoft fully deserves all the bashing that can be dished out for inflicting bad software on the world for the last 30 years.

[Lerianis]

Uh, have you not seen the problems with Leopard recently, AppleFanboy1963? It isn't just Microsoft that is having problems coding (Vista has NO problems really, I have had a total system crash with it ONCE that I can remember except when I was installing an old Windows XP game that the manufacturer told me "This will crash Vista, just restart and install this patch and you will be fine!"

[The_happy_switcher]

I've OS X 2 years and I have NEVER had a problem with an update. I can't say the same about my previous experience with Windows which lasted a mind numbing 17 years cause I kept hoping MSFT would get their s**t together. I finally gave up and move on to greener pastures. Apparently millions are following, too.

[Urbane.Tiger]

because it's fashionable - the media and the fashionista's are often one and the same or if not they are most likely in an incestuous relationship

[Igiveup2]

Leopard looks like the Mac version of Windows Millennium. Too many features added to a dated and inefficient kernel, causing slowdowns and instability. There is some poetic justice that Apple released that turkey after bashing Vista. No wonder Apple is planning on taking a breather from new OS features and working on core architecture for its next OSX release. Will Apple extend the courtesy of keeping Tiger available for 18 months after the next OS release, as Microsoft did with XP? Will they sell Leopard with downgrade rights to Tiger? No way. Apple will admit a problem with their OS when pigs fly.

[rthutchison]

What a completely idiotic article. Good thing you don't have an agenda to push. Disgraceful

[JohnLudlow]

And the quote the article uses also shows a level of ignorance - like we should stop closing security holes because they're not being exploited as often these days, or we shouldn't lock applications down to reduce the damage of their security holes. And as though Vista is the first new OS that requires apps to be updated.

[smonoco]

I agree with most of the above comments. I'm using vista as my primary O.S. and I never have any problems with programs not working which means that the majority of developers are clearly making software for older versions of Windows and Vista. This isn't the first rediculous article I've come across at CNet .

[Lerianis]

I have to agree. It seems that CNet is allowing 'Apple Fanboyism' to infect their articles, and I am really going to get on their case about it with the comment that I am going to send to them.

[jb3d]

Numbers without the background are useless. Just how were the survey questions phrased? If someone was to ask me if I was developing applications for Vista, I would say no. On the other hand if they were to ask me if my application ran on Vista, I would say yes. I would hope the survey asked: What is the oldest version of Windows that your applications run on? But I have no way of knowing because neither this article nor the article it links to tell me how the question was phrased.

I think if you asked Apple developers what was the minimum version of Mac OS's that they were targeting you would get similar results. A tiny amount would say they targeted OS 9, the bulk would say they targeted OS 10.3 and a small number would say their application required OS 10.5. Does that mean that very few developers write applications for OS 10.5? Of course not.

[TDShadow]

In the Windows world, you write for Win16, Win32, or .NET... then you "optimize" for Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, and Vista.

In the Mac world, it's the same way.

Win16 = Classic. Mostly dead. Abandonware aplenty.

Win32 = Carbon. Heavily in use by the heavy-hitters. Tons of old code still in use. Still getting updated.

.NET = Cocoa. The latest and greatest, where every new developer goes first.

...and like the Windows World, there are expected drivers/APIs for each major release, some cooler than others.

OS 9.2-10.2 is not developed for any more. Most other apps have 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5-specific versions (Source: http://www.versiontracker.com/ - a C|net site) and most of the 10.3 versions are no longer updated.

This is different from the "lowest common denominator" approach of Windows developers, so I can see how you made the assumption that most go for 10.3 and few for 10.5.

Either way.... this article WAS junk.

[irperez]

Another example of CNET's bias and double standard against Windows.... I used to love the way CNET brought objective articles, but these days, its always negative towards microsoft. When was the last time Microsoft did something good according to CNET. I can't remember. When in actuality, Microsoft has been coming out with some very good things. I am a developer and I agree with Ken. .Net is not specific to a OS version. Now are there developers out there that do things that may not work with Vista, sure, but 92%? thats rediculous. Now when was the last time you heard anything about Apple's development platforms and how they compare to Microsoft's .Net? Apple does not have anything in remote range of the .Net platform and all of its libraries. Its just no where near. But CNET journalists create this double standard.

[The_Decider]

OK, I will bite. When was the last time Microsoft produced something that was not total crap? 8 years, 15 years? Never?

[OlsonBW]

I think what he is trying to say in the article is that they are not TARGETING Vista. Meaning that they are not specifically trying to use Vista features which would preclude the apps from running in XP.

Since they aren't using Vista specific features it is easy to say the are not programming FOR IT. Since they are not, it means they are writing programs the way they were before which JUST HAPPEN to also work in Vista. Therefore they are programming MAINLY for XP. Again, they just also happen to work, for the most park, in Vista.

[WDATL]

Though I agree with the comments that developers may not target vista, but as a user I do know the frustrations of installing software on Vista. By now, I just automatically set a program file to use XP compatability and 'run as administrator' (even though my one user account is an administrator) before running it. Just too many problems with installs to try it once first. MS missed it big time as far as usability with this OS, and though I was happy at first, I now recommend to people that they stick with XP and avoid the headaches.

[alegr]

You know the little secret, Microsoft has been telling the developers to make the program run under limited user credential since... NT 4. Blame ignorant developers for writing crap that requires admin privileges, not Microsoft.

[ballmerisanape]

The fanboyism being displayed here is disheartening. Read the article again, and then come back to us with an objective point of view. As OlsonBW said, the article is correct in pointing out that developers are sticking with programming in ways that do not specifically take advantage of Vista's features.. if there are any to take advantage of.

[Crankypaul]

I'm not a developer, nor am I an engineer. In fact my only reason to come in contact with the Wintel world is my work system that I set up for Quickbooks. The initial costs were lower than if I had chosen a Mac or I would have gone in that direction.

However, I do have many friends who are in the Wintel world and MOST of them avoid using Vista if they can.

I'll also take a stand and say that while I would very much like to see Microsoft stumble and fall, all manufacturers, software and hardware, have had their share of mistakes/failures. Microsoft has had a good run and the fact that Vista doesn't seem to be doing well should really be a surprise. It was bound to happen at some point.

[The_happy_switcher]

That's okay, just wait for WIN 7 when MSFT puts a new shine on another chrome-plated turd.

[JohnLudlow]

@ballmerisanape: It doesn't say anything of the kind. Perhaps the original data does, but I haven't read that as fully. Perhaps the linked article did, but I haven't read that either. I've read /this/ article, and /this/ article doesn't make it clear whether it's talking about Vista-specific features or not, but the wording suggests it's talking about applications that will run on Vista, rather than apps using Vista features.

I know some very smart people who won't use Vista. But this is usually because they are happy with XP (a valid reason) or because they refuse to educate themselves about Vista (which isn't a valid reason). For example, I've heard the argument that Vista is bad because of UAC, which is ignorant because UAC is nothing more than a more streamlined version of the "switch user" option from XP. It's not perfect, since a switch user option isn't what we want here (more of an "elevate user" option) and it's not always logical when it appears, but it's still an improvement over XP.

There's a bunch of other things like that but I think you get the idea.

However, if you tell me you won't upgrade to Vista because XP does the trick, then who am I to argue? You might want to reconsider when updates stop (has that happened already? Can't remember what the commitment was), though.

[celticbrewer]

My guess is that things are more web centric (like what I program) than OS specific. Or at the very least, cross platform. Who buys the most software? Business. What do most businesses run?

[JohnLudlow]

@celtic: good point - there has been a shift from local apps to web based ones for business use, and these are often picked from open source solutions, which are often written in cross-platform languages such as PHP, Python or Ruby. Even .NET is in on the act with Mono.

[mikestatic1]

Good to see all of the Microsoft apologists out in force. Vista = failure. Accept it and move on.

[softwaredesignengineer]

So you don't know anything about the .Net framework do you?