Comments on: Microsoft still pushing Vista compatibility story

More than 18 months after releasing the operating system, Microsoft finds it necessary to release a tool to figure out whether software and hardware are Vista-ready. Oh yeah, and the tool is broken on Day 1.

[ckurowic]

What? People buy new Mac's every 2-3 years? Are you high? I like how you pulled that "data" out of your anal cavity. Most Mac users purchase new computers every 4-5 years (data from Macrumors.com, according to a poll). Macs that are upwards of 6-7 years old can still run Leopard, albeit slowly. I also like how you windows users scream "FANBOY" at every chance you get, yet you are the ones who are bringing up Mac's and Apple in a Microsoft related story! Get a life.

[chrisaroz]

I never said one bad thing about Apple or Macs, and I never mentioned "fanboy. I don't care what kind of compter you use, you could a typewriter for all I care. What I was referring to was my experience of friends and family who have had Macs. They typically upgrade every time there's a new "HOT" product, and from what I've seen on several websites I visit that seemed to be echoed. I never meant to offend anyone, I was just citing that the problem isn't aWindows only issue, but occurs anytime there is a signifigant upgrade to a product line.

[Commandoclone87]

tekwiz4u....Beta means a product that has passed initial testing (a.k.a Alpha) and is still undergoing the final stages of testing before an offical commercial release.

[tekwiz4u]

I know what it means. I was being sarcastic, but it SHOULD function after Alpha stage.

[jdawgnoonan]

Hopefully Microsoft is really creative and hires PC from the Mac commercial when they start up their Vista adds. That way everyone will know that the ad campaign is all a joke (like Vista is).

[Hernys]

OK, for those bashing Vista compatibility, can you tell me what's so great about the alternatives? I'm running Vista with some ten year old apps, some new apps and some in the middle. About 10% didn't work, and I had to find a replacement.
With my wife's Mac she had to basiclaly throw away the vast majority of her software with the processor change. And I guess that also happened with the move to PPC. I'm not bashing Apple, that's the cost of progress, but the fact is that Apple's compatibility is an order of magnitude worse than Vista's.
And don't get me started with Linux. Apps don't even move seamlessly among distros, and consecutive releases break tons of things.
So the compatibility in Vista is not perfect. But it's still an order of magnitude better than the alternatives in that respect. So if you are going to complain about Vista, maybe you can say it's hardware hungry, or that it isn't too innovative, or perhaps that it's pricey. But the compatibility is actually best in class, even if it is not perfect.

[johnqh]

Which software did she have to throw out? If the software for for OS9 (which was phased out 5 years ago), it won't run on Intel Macs. However, if the software was for OSX, even if it was compiled for PPC, it will run, although slower.

There are actually three issues.

1. Compatibility problem caused by hardware changes. Apple went through two major changes, so it has its own compatibility problems during those changes.
2. New OS with old hardware. Let me just say five or six year old Macs can run Leopard fine. That cannot be said about Vista.
3. New OS with old software. Actually, a lot of third party software don't work on Vista, due to developers ignoring Microsoft's guidelines when they develop for XP. Not really MS's fault, but definitely more severe than on Mac.

Mac users complaint too when Apple's CPU changes broke their software, so everything fair.

The real issue I see the the messy marketing. How many versions are there? XP was simple (home, pro, media center). Vista is a total mess. MS can do a lot by simply streamline the versions into two or three editions. Having too many versions only confuse people (just like too many Linux distros).

[cruzex]

Hey guys,

This is the best site you can come across for all product related queries, The site works and you can check the site here:

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windows/default.mspx

There is issue with the Americas link and hence you are unable to see the results, change the location from here and you will see the results:

http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windows/worldwide.mspx

It's an awesome experience to see the list of products in this site,


Have fun and enjoy...

Regards,
Tom

[cross platform]

It really seems like Cnet has it out for Vista. Just like they had it out for the Mac OS a few years ago! Once again: 4 year old Gateway Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz 2 gigs of RAM and a Nvidia 7800 GS OC, Carefully reviewed my hardware and software. Updated what I had to ( just like I used to when I was a mac user and they had a new OS release ). Upgraded from XP Sp2 in Oct 07'. Now I'm using Vista SP 1. Still works fine ( read better than XP as it solved some problems ). All my stuff works and I didn't take a big hit on performance. I like Vista a lot more than XP so from my viewpoint what's the problem? I would never want to go back to XP. It seemed old. Older than some of the software that ran on it.

[Imalittleteapot]

I think you are missing the point. Computers are only now shipping with two to four gig of ram. Just because your computer is up to spec doesn't mean anything. The 7800 GS wasn't released until 2006 which means you upgraded sometime in the last two years. You have probably upgraded your ram as well. You have not proven you can run Vista on a four year old computer. We already know about upgrading believe it or not. Most home and office computers didn't have 2 gig of ram or a dedicated AGP card then. When talking about years what people are really talking about is the average computer of the time. I'm sorry you don?t understand that. Yes, you can upgrade an old computer to run Vista, but then you're still spending extra money to do so when XP already works. It does not matter in what form you spend that money. The argument that it costs too much to upgrade a large organization to Vista still holds true regardless. We won't be putting game cards in the office computers to run Vista. Would you? All you've proven is that you can run Vista if you spend money. We already know that. In fact it would probably be better to have not bought a 7800 GS. That money could now contribute to buying a new computer. Since computer prices have fallen relative to computing power you would be getting a much better bang for your buck and an even better Vista experience. If there was such a thing anyway. Now, if you want a real challenge I happen to be on a four year old computer also. It has no game card and 512 Meg of ram. It is a tried and true Office/XP machine. Would you like to pay for another 7800 GS so we can run Vista on it? Well guess what? My boss doesn't either. Even though he runs Vista on his laptop. Do you understand now?

[Save_Me_from_my_Govt]

That's why I bought a copy of XP/Pro the other day, before it disappeared ... No matter what new machine I buy--and I WILL be buying a new one soon--the first thing I'm going to do is wipe the hard drive and install XP... (Not to mention that will have the immediate effect of getting rid of all the crap-ware that they typically install on a new machine...Hint: NO, I do NOT want a subscription to that purveyor of trojan-software, AOL...)

[Imalittleteapot]

Better hit device manager in Vista first and check all your hardware and then double check that you can actually locate XP drivers for all your hardware. I wouldn't wipe right way. A few bits of hardware don't have XP drivers anymore or in some cases the XP drivers aren't fully functional. I know, it sucks.

[Namtaro]

Well when I installed Vista for the first time, my printer didn't work and my External HD didn't work. I see it not as a failure but a lesson for MS to improve Windows 7 :)

I don't hate vista, I love the looks, and my computer has enough resources to run it, I just don't want to buy another 1TB HD and another Laser Printer.

I have tried a Mac and don't like how it's at the top, but I guess if I did have one then I would love it.... People with both Mac and Windows know what there saying.

Well, I'm still running Windows XP Pro, and it's working for me.

I rebuild my computer every 2-3 years, I don't really overhaul everything, just upgrade the VGA and RAM and sometimes CPU, only after about 4 - 5 years I redo everything.

[Lerianis]

Your external hard drive didn't work? Did you install the device driver for it, or actually have it plugged in? I was called once to a friend's house because he upgraded to Vista and his external hard drive wasn't working.... turned out he didn't have it turned on or plugged in (number 2 and number 1 there).
Every single USB hard drive out there and Firewire hard drive should work with Vista, just by plugging it in.

[mrguard]

Ina,
I think you are making your own news by bashing vista or MS .

Read this comment from Paul Thurrott's comment:
http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/07/08/tech-press-continues-bashing-windows-vista.aspx

Doesn't this just get old at some point?

In the latest example of reporter-I-really-respect-doing-the-wrong-thing, CNET's Ina Fried today wrote a strange article that's more Microsoft bashing than actual reporting. Given her history, this is very, very surprising. Seriously, she's good stuff.

Here's how the article starts:

Microsoft on Tuesday released a new tool designed to allow customers to see whether their hardware and software will work properly with Windows Vista.

Well, except that Microsoft on Tuesday did not release a new tool. Microsoft intends to release a beta version of new tool sometime on Tuesday. It wasn't up as of the publication of the quoted article. But looking over the public Windows Web site (Available via http://www.windows.com or http://www.microsoft/com/windows), I don't see any message about this site existing, or that it's coming. The importance of this fact will become clear in a moment.

No, this isn't an old article. It is July 2008 and Microsoft still finds it necessary to show customers that plenty of hardware and software works with Vista, which has now been on the market for more than 18 months.

They sure do. Apparently the tech press and blogosphere has been mindlessly repeating some untrue rumor about Vista still having compatibility issues. I know, I know. It sounds crazy. But it happens. And those Apple Switcher ads? Get this: People believe they're true. I know. I laugh just thinking about it.

But seriously, folks. Here's the real problem with this article:

The online tool is off to a rough start as well. It was supposed to be publicly available in beta form starting this morning.

It was ... supposed to be? According to whom? Microsoft? Did Microsoft brief you about this earlier than Tuesday and then, what, it didn't happen? If Microsoft doesn't announce publicly that something is going to happen on a particular day and then that thing doesn't happen ... is that, what? Bad? Funny?

However, those that went to the site on Tuesday morning instead got the message, "The Windows Vista Compatibility Center is currently unavailable. Thank you for your interest, but this site is not available yet. Please check back soon."

Now why would anyone visit this beta Web site? Is there a link to it somewhere? I mean somewhere other than this very article in which you explain that the site should be there but isn't? In other words, we read that the site is not available and then visit it, and sure enough, it's not there. Is that really what this is?

I'll let that speak for itself.

Except that you won't. You're not letting this speak for itself, you're editorializing it pretty heavily and then even providing some screen shots?one of which was given to you by Microsoft to show what the site should look like. You're doing everything but letting it speak for itself.

A Microsoft spokesperson said the issue should be resolved later in the day.

Here's the real story. Look how easy this is to write:



Microsoft still pushing Vista compatibility story
by Paul Thurrott

Sometime on Tuesday, Microsoft will release a beta version of a new tool designed to allow customers to see whether their hardware and software will work properly with Windows Vista.

That's the whole story. You can write it like that. Or you can make a mountain out of a molehill.



PS: Before posting this, I did the requisite ten seconds of research and actually called Microsoft. The company confirmed a few facts: It had briefed CNET about the beta compatibility site and its Tuesday availability. There are no links to this site from anywhere on the Microsoft public Web site. So the only way any individual could ever think to visit it ... would be if they read the CNET article and found out about it there first.

Please tell me I'm missing something. Please. I would love to be wrong about this one.

UPDATE: Mary Jo Foley also mentions the beta compatibility Web site because it was discussed during a WPC keynote on Tuesday. However, she accurately notes that "The site will be all about helping to 'bust the myth' that Windows Vista is not compatible with many apps and devices." You know, once it's available.

So there are in fact two high profile bloggers linking to the (currently nonexistent) site.

I still find Fried's approach to this thing?which, let's face it, is hardly a major news story?to be snarkier than required. It's a beta site, not a new version of Windows Update.

Published Jul 08 2008, 03:52 PM by pthurrott

[kojacked]

Paul 1, Ina 0

Nice one Paul.

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Pathetic. MSFT is just not worth insulting. The company is just disabled. Asking MSFT to do anything competently is like expecting a quadroplegic to play the violin.

[eldernorm]

@mrguard and others,

Troll all you want for MIcrosoft. A company of this size puts out a web site that shows how good Vista is with hardware and software....... and the site is broke.

Nuff said. If 40 billion dollars will not buy enough people to get a simple web site up and running on time, ------ DO NOT TELL ANYONE UNTIL ITS READY!!!!!!!!

These Microsoft supports (paid trolls anyone??) all seem to treat Microsoft software like its a new thing and never been tried before. Nerds working on their own time to try and produce some new thing.

Microsoft has been making software (and badly at that) for many years. And when they want to try and impress the public with how good they are........ the web site craps out.

Give me a break. PERIOD. If you want to treat Microsoft like some simple nerd fellowship, fine. That is like saying the Titanic was just some so so cruise ship.

It was the biggest, the best, the greatest - unsinkable--- pile of iron on the bottom of the ocean. Yea, sort of reminds me of Microsoft. :-)

Just a thought.

[mrguard]

hey eldermorm, do you know if MS announced anything about this vista site in a press release ? Nope. Infact , the only mistake they did was to brief Cnet ( or Ina ) about an upcoming website which they thought would be up on Tue. they might have found some last minute hitches, so they didnt release it. so making a news about a thing that MS didnt announce publicly is a very poor journalism, and bashing vista based on that is poorly cynic!

[kojacked]

The_Decider must be the real George Bush. He can't see the sarcasm in all of his smugness.

[mrguard]

hey eldermorm, do you know if MS announced anything about this vista site in a press release ? Nope. Infact , the only mistake they did was to brief Cnet ( or Ina ) about an upcoming website which they thought would be up on Tue. they might have found some last minute hitches, so they didnt release it. so making a news about a thing that MS didnt announce publicly is a very poor journalism, and bashing vista based on that is poorly cynic!

[jagssg02]

Vista is a really BAD OS for use as "Windows". The solution would be to scrap it and update XP. Never before have I known Microsoft to come out with such a MESS.

[cross platform]

Re: Imalittleteapot

" think you are missing the point. Computers are only now shipping with two to four gig of ram. Just because your computer is up to spec doesn't mean anything. The 7800 GS wasn't released until 2006 which means you upgraded sometime in the last two years. You have probably upgraded your ram as well. You have not proven you can run Vista on a four year old computer. We already know about upgrading believe it or not. Most home and office computers didn't have 2 gig of ram or a dedicated AGP card then. When talking about years what people are really talking about is the average computer of the time. I'm sorry you don?t understand that. Yes, you can upgrade an old computer to run Vista, but then you're still spending extra money to do so when XP already works. It does not matter in what form you spend that money. The argument that it costs too much to upgrade a large organization to Vista still holds true regardless. We won't be putting game cards in the office computers to run Vista. Would you? All you've proven is that you can run Vista if you spend money. We already know that. In fact it would probably be better to have not bought a 7800 GS. That money could now contribute to buying a new computer. Since computer prices have fallen relative to computing power you would be getting a much better bang for your buck and an even better Vista experience. If there was such a thing anyway. Now, if you want a real challenge I happen to be on a four year old computer also. It has no game card and 512 Meg of ram. It is a tried and true Office/XP machine. Would you like to pay for another 7800 GS so we can run Vista on it? Well guess what? My boss doesn't either. Even though he runs Vista on his laptop. Do you understand now? "

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Saying that computers are only just now shipping with 2 gigs of RAM is inaccurate. They started shipping with 2 last fall. A year ago it was common to find a PC on sale at Best Buy or Circuit City with 1 GIG. My Video card cost me $250.00 on sale. Since I'm a gamer I would have done it anyway. The configuration you list for your " Office Machine " sounds really under powered for this day and age. Like I said when I was a Mac user this was common practice. They do add those empty slots and interchangable parts for a reason you know. And if you're saying PC users aren't savey enough to upgrade their existing system instead of buying a whole new rig well I just don't believe that. When I owned a G4 tower from Apple I had to do the same thing when I upgraded to OS X. The problem as I see it is that MS waited too long to release this major upgrade. 5 years is really too long. PC users just weren't used to upgrading anymore since they haddn't done it in a long time. Also the hardware and software can change considerably over a 5 year span. You put this all together and you get what we have. A bit of a shock! Like I've said I bought this computer with upgrading in mind ( which everyone should do ). It's kept me running the latest software and games without getting a whole new computer. Which would be more expensive. Now do you understand?

[i_made_this]

Still lots of rage against the system that drives the more expensive machines. I don't understand the fuss - you don't like it, don't buy it - no one's forcing Vista on anyone - vote with your wallet. Linux is great - I've carried Ubuntu with me on my laptop for years and dual boot it with Vista Ultimate on my desktop. Apple is just as shrewd - maybe moreso - as Microsoft. For those who've never tried OS X, give it a whirl - you'll discover why Apple diehards actually approve of Vista. C|Net is right - Microsoft is still pushing Vista because that's their job. Just like C|NET's job is to improve the profitability of CBS with all those Microsoft links and ad's. Vista's cheap - the new Intel line of processors isn't. Yell at Intel if you want to vent and get at the back of the line with Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, HP, Dell and Systemax in front of you. And praise AMD for trying to keep this whole game reasonable. OK, now I've given people some ammo to flame AMD - go for it! lol...

[ncreb]

Vista's substantial drawbacks are not always immediately apparent as I found out when trying to use a Windows based program that has always worked seamlessly over every Windows OS platform all the way back to Windows 95. Until Vista. In Vista the program installed successfully but then upon execution, utterly failed in basic and critical operations making the software all but useless. Why Vista could not accommodate a very simple Windows based utility is unknown. I have had repeated experiences with other types of software Microsoft claims Vista will run but doesn't either displaying total or partial failure including parts of Windows Vista applications themselves such as Windows Media Player 11. Finally, with the glaring lack of product support and solutions to compatibility problems, I may be leaving Windows and taking up with Apple, learning a new OS, and buying new software. My frustration level with Vista is that great.